More Dummies in "Science"

I have been away for a bit and a LOT has happened for me to blog about. I am planning a sizable blog about statins and how they not only provide no protection from heart disease, they probably make it worse (plus all the side effects!).

But I just read a little article about gout and something made me laugh so I thought I would share. The article can be found here at sciencedaily.com, billed as "Your source for the latest research news." So I stop by their often for a good laugh. It says that high intake of sweetened soft drinks increase a man's risk for getting gout.

First they tell us the usual method to reverse gout:

Conventional dietary recommendations for gout have focused on the restriction of purines (found in high levels in meat and meat products, especially liver and kidney) and alcohol but with no restriction of sugar sweetened soft drinks.

That makes sense, sugar has never been reported to cause any medical problems, right? Obviously the problem lies with meat, a source of food for all animals for millions of years. OK, a little sarcasm there, but it just shows how little the medical industry actually knows.

The study tells us:

The risk of gout increased with increasing intake of sugar sweetened soft drinks. The risk was significantly increased with an intake level of 5-6 servings per week and the risk was 85% higher among men who consumed two or more servings of sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day compared to those who consumed less than one serving per month.

Not really a surprise here, soda has a negative nutritional value so it should cause health problems.

But what about fruit juices, they are considered to be "healthful" because of the fruit in their name. No one really mentions the high amount of sugar, added or not, it is "fruit sugars" and if they have fruit in their name then they must be good for you! But wait! The study gets something right here... Almost:

Fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were associated with a higher risk of gout. However, the authors stress that this finding needs to be balanced against the benefit of fruit and vegetable intake to prevent other chronic disorders like high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer.

Like I said, they almost got it right. Somehow the authors have mistaken "fruit juice" for "fruit and vegetable intake." So they take an apple and squeeze out all the liquid and sugar, leaving all the important nutrients behind, then add high fructose corn syrup to it, pasteurize it and bottle it and call that a serving of fruit. They actually believe a glass of orange juice is the equivalent of eating an orange. AND they combine that in the same sentence with "vegetable" making a glass of juice the same as a serving of broccoli! I haven't finished grad school, hell, I haven't even started grad school... I don't even plan on taking my education any further then my BS in biology, but I think I know more then these idiots. Or am I having visions of grandeur?