>Scientific evidence on fructose and the liver is relatively new
People have been force feeding animals to fatten them up (gavage) for about 5,000 years, but specifically feeding them sugars/grains for the purpose of fattening their liver.
Ever hear of the French delicacy Foie Gras(1)? It literally means fat liver, and after 5,000 years of perfecting fattening liver what do we force feed the animals? Corn! The same fructose we highly concentrate and load into foods and drinks and feed to kids...which goes hand in hand, per the article, with why kids weren’t diagnosed with fatty liver disease pre 1980’s and now 13% of US children have it.
High fructose corn syrup is made by processing regular corn syrup (mostly glucose) with enzymes to convert some of the glucose to fructose, making it sweeter. Corn is not naturally high in fructose.
Is there a term for scientific claims made in this way? I saw something similar on reddit the other day where a commenter was trying to prove that a certain chemical was not harmful. It went something like "The reason we think this chemical is harmful is because of this study from the 60s which was done in 17 countries. But one country was excluded from the study because of inconclusive results. Which one? The US! The country that we care the most about, and there weren't solid results here!"
It's basically a narrative, "an explanation", not science. In particular this is an easy to vary explanation. (Just cherry pick other data to fit your narrative.)
Science is looking at a problem. Stating it. Analysing it. (Setting up hypotheses, gathering data, coming up with clever ways to test those hypotheses, desigining experiments, conducting them, evaluating their results, and then iterating on this. While being vigilant at every step. Trying to falsify every step. If you can't falsify it, great, you have a useful model.)
I don't know if it has a term of not, but it sounds like the pretty fuckin' opposite of science to me - adjusting the results to fit your wanted view instead of adjusting your view to fit the results.
Same with skim milk, which has always been used to fatten pigs. But some prefer it today thinking less fat and cholesterol is healthier and would make them lose weight over whole milk. If only the most complex system in the universe (the human body) was that simple! People and, unfortunately, scientists completely ignored the complexity of hormones, gene expressions, and many other factors when suggesting "healthier" alternatives!
False. Fructose != skim milk. Less fat and less calories in skim milk can cause weight loss.
The claim that skim milk was fed to pigs because it has some magical fattening properties is just another urban myth. Skim milk was fed to pigs because it was free/cheap and nutritional.
When did I ever say that skim milk and fructose are the same thing?! Both whole and nonfat milk contain the same quantity of lactose and galactose. By the way, galactose is equally bad if not worse than fructose and lactose converts to galactose in your digestive tract, so, your misreading is partially correct. Unfortunately for me, galactose is present in yogurt as well.
Anyway, they fed pigs skim milk because no human wanted it, and when you take out the fat for cream and butter than junk was suitable only for the swine. Your articles are no scientific or historical proof. Without the fat in milk, the calcium in skim milk ends up in your arteries, not your bones. So, fattening or not, skim milk is not a healthier alternative from many aspects.
The funniest thing is that skim, and whole milk in America have the same price! So, the fat is removed to sell it separately and at a high price, and, yet, both types of milk are sold at the same price because there are stupid enough people to consider it "better."
I have organic raw grass-fed whole milk, and my kids have had it for over 5 years with no issues whatsoever. Kudos to Organic Pastures [0] to keep providing a high-quality product with consistency during this time!
People have been force feeding animals to fatten them up (gavage) for about 5,000 years, but specifically feeding them sugars/grains for the purpose of fattening their liver.
Ever hear of the French delicacy Foie Gras(1)? It literally means fat liver, and after 5,000 years of perfecting fattening liver what do we force feed the animals? Corn! The same fructose we highly concentrate and load into foods and drinks and feed to kids...which goes hand in hand, per the article, with why kids weren’t diagnosed with fatty liver disease pre 1980’s and now 13% of US children have it.
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras