by Chris Masterjohn
My last post was political and got 17 comments just in the first six hours. I suppose that means I'm due for another post about religion, or one about sex. Given Stephan Guyenet's recent post about the dangers of hyperpalatability, though, I'm inclined to obey the proverb "don't take too much honey" and delicately sprinkle those sweet and enticing posts on the nourishing bulk of the usual biochemistry you get at this blog.
My last post was political and got 17 comments just in the first six hours. I suppose that means I'm due for another post about religion, or one about sex. Given Stephan Guyenet's recent post about the dangers of hyperpalatability, though, I'm inclined to obey the proverb "don't take too much honey" and delicately sprinkle those sweet and enticing posts on the nourishing bulk of the usual biochemistry you get at this blog.
I try to make this blog more like wine than grape juice -- you know, the adult flavors people enjoy in France where obesity rates are lower.
And besides, this post will answer the cliff-hanger I dropped at the end of Monday's post, "Let Us Honor Ancel Keys, Our Patron, As We Cherry Pick Studies to Bash Fructose."
Peter Dobromylskyj over at Hyperlipid recently posted "Diabetic nephropathy and the lost Swede," wherein he discussed the ability of a ~95% fat diet to produce weight loss in mice.
In this post, I'd like to take a look at what happened to food intake, hormones, and body composition in that study, and explain why eating butter with no steak, bread, vegetables, or potatoes under it isn't a very good idea.
