There is conclusive evidence of a problem. The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are all out there and free to anyone with a web browser.
One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it.
1. We all agree there is conclusive evidence of a problem with diet and obesity.
2. Author inconclusively argues that sugar is the cause of the problem.
3. Someone says this is irresponsible journalism (scaremongering).
4. In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection.
As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.
"In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection."
I guess the big issue I have with his advice is that obesity is really most strongly correlated with increased intake of calories, and less so with the macronutritional source of those calories.
In his books, Gary Taubes makes an argument that the causal relationship is reversed. It's not that eating too much causes your body to store the excess as fat. Rather it's that your body is storing necessary energy as fat before your body can use it, so you need to eat more to make up the deficit.
Fair point, and I didn't consider this rude at all. I am not offended by being misread (it happens) or by rudeness (within reason, if the content is good). The intersection, less so. Thanks for the links. All for reducing caloric intake, but I think a sibling post makes a good point about that. I have already taken more than my fair share of this thread, I'll let the rest to better minds than mine.
A rise in diabetes and other ailments is not conclusive evidence that sugar is toxic, and that you think it might be does a pretty good job of demonstrating my point (that this stuff should be kept in journals, to be read by people who understand how science works, and only thrown into newspapers when we have proof).
I spent half my undergrad in labs, writing up formal scientific results. I wrote and was graded on plenty of scientific papers. I have a fine understanding of scientific publishing, data analysis, and experimental methods.
The fact that you misread me is your problem. I did not write there was conclusive evidence that sucrose is toxic. I said _conclusive evidence of a problem_ - which is different thing and is clearly true.
Conclusive evidence of a problem is completely irrelevant.
Responding to a comment referring to a specific lack of evidence about sugar/toxicity by saying that there is conclusive evidence of "a problem" implies relevancy, which implies that you are confusing the two issues.
Well, I don't confuse the two issues. I'm glad that is out of the way.
Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?
From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.
"Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality?"
In general? I find it distasteful but I don't really give that much of a shit.
Topics like nutrition or medicine have a large potential to cause bodily harm however, and I firmly believe that non-rigorous studies should not be shared with populations that don't have the capacity to understand the limitations present.
Example: Shoddy studies about vaccines and the general public mix with disastrous results.
All so this journalist can make a quick buck, instead of finding something more appropriate to "report" on.
One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it.
(edited)