On 20-Apr-11 7:44 AM, ss wrote: > In other words if Americans eat lots of toxic sugar and get fat as a result, > people who get fat are not gettng fat necessarily because of sugar, right? > > The meaning of the above sentence is that getting fat is not due to sugar > alone.
Correct. > If getting fat is not due to sugar alone, how does the article conclude in > such a sanguine manner that it's the sugar that is to blame? That is the > problem I have with the article. The last paragraph of the article in question (which is a fair summation, IMO, of the various preceding paragraphs): <quote> Sugar scares me too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do. </quote> "Sanguine"? How do you come to that conclusion? Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
