A_hanso tips an article by Gary Taubes in the NYTimes monthly that evaluates claims from Dr. Robert Lustig's virally popular lecture on the 1995 by houghton mifflin harcourt issue company. published by houghton mifflin harcourt issue company. all rights reserved.view results from: lexicon | llc.view results from: words




roget's ii: the new thesaurusmain entry:vocabulary
part of speech:noun
definition:an alphabetical list of words often defined or translated.
glossary | lexicon



if (lexico_globals.googleafc.ads.content.length)
{
document.write(lexico_globals.googleafc.ads.contenttop);
document.write(lexico_globals.googleafc.ads.sponsoredlinks);
document.write(lexico_globals.googleafc.ads.content[2]);
document.write("") | encyclopedia | all testimonial | the web
share this: | encyclopedia | all tribute | the web
share this: effects of sugar on peoples' health. (YouTube video of the lecture.) Taubes discusses the science behind the claims and the odd willingness of people to accept Lustig's arguments without further inspection. Quoting:
"When I set out to press hearing public health cabinet and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the examination with some disparity of the comment 'surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,' not because Lustig has done any of the key inquiry on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic mass that people abuse. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as being that’s killing us. This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar god willing* be as bad as Lustig says it is?"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More: - Read More

Mark