Thanks for posting this. Sometimes I wonder if HN should automatically replace the 'popular glosses' with the actual papers being discussed. The paper is indeed a lot less clear, although it does make substantially the same claims made in the linked article. It just doesn't do a great job of defending those claims.
The biggest problem would seem to be that Experiment 1 showed that rats given a 8% HFCS solution for 12 hours a day gain more significantly more weight than rats given the same solution for 24 hours a day, even though both groups consume the same total number of calories. While this might be a possible effect, the most likely conclusion is that 'statistically significant' does not in this case mean reproducible.
The second big problem with the 'HFCS is worse than sugar' interpretation is that in Experiment 2 (6 months instead of 8 weeks), they dropped the sucrose comparison from all the males in the long-term study! The females did show weight gain for a diet that allowed 24 hour access to HFCS, but no weight gain was observed for female rats allowed to free-feed on either sucrose of HFCS for 12 hours a day. Not just no difference between them, NO WEIGHT GAIN over just chow.
From this, they conclude "HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats." Sure, just not in the same experiment. And not in many cases. "Less clear" is an understatement. "Disgrace" get closer, but doesn't manage to convey my anger that the authors can do this while still remaining employed.
The biggest problem would seem to be that Experiment 1 showed that rats given a 8% HFCS solution for 12 hours a day gain more significantly more weight than rats given the same solution for 24 hours a day, even though both groups consume the same total number of calories. While this might be a possible effect, the most likely conclusion is that 'statistically significant' does not in this case mean reproducible.
The second big problem with the 'HFCS is worse than sugar' interpretation is that in Experiment 2 (6 months instead of 8 weeks), they dropped the sucrose comparison from all the males in the long-term study! The females did show weight gain for a diet that allowed 24 hour access to HFCS, but no weight gain was observed for female rats allowed to free-feed on either sucrose of HFCS for 12 hours a day. Not just no difference between them, NO WEIGHT GAIN over just chow.
From this, they conclude "HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats." Sure, just not in the same experiment. And not in many cases. "Less clear" is an understatement. "Disgrace" get closer, but doesn't manage to convey my anger that the authors can do this while still remaining employed.