When I drew your attention to the fat area of this study (i think you deleted one of my post),RRM wrote:...Aytundra wrote:What about this:
...Kavanagh et al...
An essential difference is that the Hfr diet contains 17 energy% fat and the control diet 13 energy% fat. (i am surprised that they did that)
The idea is actually not about noticing the fat percentage was different or if the study noted down differences in fat energy percentages.
JeffC originally linked this article when we were on the AGE/ALE discussion, and then when I first read it, at first glace it looked like fructose looked bad.
Actually this article has a fundamental flaw in their study design.
They did not hold every variable constant*, while testing for the effects of fructose.
Hence, I cannot believe that they can draw a valid conclusion that fructose is bad.
Because, they did not hold every variable constant, they could have said that differences in fat sources in the diet caused liver problems too,
hence they cannot put a blame on fructose, nor can they blame the fats unless they do another study.
So imo now, this study is almost worthless in its ability to condemn fructose.
The major flaw is in the details of Table 1.
They allowed lots of variations in fat "types" ingested between the Controls and Test subjects.
Table 1 of [url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/06/19/ajcn.112.057331.full.pdf+html]Kavanagh et al[/url] wrote:
Controls, Test Subject
Caloric density (kcal/g) 3.19 3.37
Carbohydrate (percentage of energy) 69 69
Fructose (percentage of energy) ,0.5 24
Carbohydrate sources Grain starches, plant fiber Wheat flour, fructose
Protein (percentage of energy) 18 14
Protein sources Whey, grain, and fish meals Casein, lactalbumin, and wheat flour
Fat (percentage of energy) 13 17
Dietary fat sources Pork fat Vegetable oils, butter
MUFA (percentage of fatty acids) 33 35
SFA (percentage of fatty acids) 30 34
PUFA (percentage of fatty acids) 37 30
Dietary fiber (percentage of diet) 4.5 3.8
Cholesterol (ppm) 75 67