I read about it, saw it in the news, etc. That must have been a decade ago already, though, so I might be misremembering. But I'm fairly sure they won.

Controlled enviroments give out controlled and expected results.
Depending who they tested they might have wanted that result instead of testing a largely diverse group, besides everyone is genetically different something that contributes to someones illness might not affect another person at all or much.

Read my link above. It's from 2003. They tried again in 2010 and the case was http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/mcdonald-s-obesity-case-judge-rejects-bid-for-group-suit-status.html. The only time it worked that I've found is in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/mcdonalds-obesity-suit-ju_n_775545.html.

Let's smoke and eat lead, everybody! The science is wrong.

Bad? No, only DANGEROUS.

I might be conflating several http://banzhaf.net/suefat.html. By the way, thanks for the wiki link. Fascinating stuff, especially McLibel.

just the science that is created to hit all the buzz words that scare stay at home moms who watch shows like the view and nancy grace, who are also absolutely certain that every other woman is out to ruin their relationship with their spouse.

there are still many legitimate studies, you will find them in places like Discover magazine. just not in headlines on yahoo news or other media outlets that are trying as hard as all hell to get you to click pop up ads so they get a little bit of money.

[censored] it, while we're at it Ima go drive my Doombuggy on the pavement and on the grass

But since I done psychology, and the part I was interested in was experiements, I know that they don't perform tests for these things without actually wanting they kind of results. They aren't going to choose random average joes or completely healthy people for this.
What I'm going to call into question is how the actually know it increases the chance of disease by 13 and 20 percent exactly...
Though if this is what Steampunk said and 1 of them a day increase the chance by 20%. Would that be 20% if I did it for a week or for a decade, does that percentage actually change or am I destined from the beginning to have an increase of 20% if I do this for at least 2 days running

Oh my glob! You're immortal!

Does any one actually pay any real attention to these studies?

The C in Vitamin C stands for citrus fruits (in which it was first discovered and which have an abnormally high concentration of it) but nothing else really. It's sometimes called L-ascorbate or L-ascorbic acid. And in tests, it's been reported by cancer patients who took daily doses of Vitamin C that it actually helped them have more energy, better appetites and decreased pain etc. Also, they are looking into how Vitamin C could be used in conjunction with chemotherapy to make it more effective; thus it will take less of a toll on the patients. http://www.sunridgemedical.com/treatments/vitamin-c-and-cancer So no, you won't get cancer from fruit juice.

You're welcome. . .but I never posted a wiki link, and I had to go and google McLibel

I don't drink anything sweet, no sweet teas, no sweet coffee and no sweet limos, I drink only pure tap water or mineral. White sugar is addictive. and meat only once a week, more fish. Meat and alcohol can increase the illness known as podagra. In 21st century people eat too much sugar and meat, and also too much fat.

sure. but by simply going into the bathroom you put your self at greater risk than eating meat and drinking soda.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/tips/most-dangerous-room.htm

but i would rather live my life enjoying foods that i like instead of worrying about dying since i know that death will come no matter what and its a waste of life to live it joyously.

i am not saying other people in this thread do not enjoy themselves but the reason why i say all this is that WE ALL HAVE FREE WILL and that should be respected. if you feel as though it puts your self at risk thats fine, just stop trying to police what i eat. i am a grown ass advlt and i don't give a [censored] if i die of a heart attack because i am the master of my destiny and comfortable with the way i live my life.

That's because I said I wanted to be in that other thread

Not everyone is the same. What could cause diabetes in one person in just a matter of 6 months, could take a year or more in another. But don't let yourself be fooled - eating a diet high in fast carbs and sugar isn't healthy for anyone and the liklihood is that you WILL develop an issue related to it. I don't care how often you run or exercise.

If a high number of people in a population are developing something - and there is a frighteningly high number of people with type 2 diabetes - then there has to be a cause. To the best of their knowledge, that is caused by being overweight, eating highly processed sugary foods, being lazy, OR a mixture of the above. (I'm not talking about type 1 which is a genetic hiccup.) You don't have to be overweight to develop type 2, but it COULD be a factor and a large number of people who are overweight DO develop it.

I agree they may skew their findings depending on who or what is doing the testing, but there are undeniable truths.

And before anyone tries to use the "my ancestors ate this/did that" line: our lives in today's world is nothing even remotely close to what our ancestors lived. We are a lazy people who rely on technology for everything, even for most of our exercise. You'll also notice that overall, even though we're told about this or that being bad, we are living longer then our ancestors so... just because your great great grandfather lived to be 100, doesn't mean he was the norm by any means and that his diet was the direct reason for his long life. Some people are just blessed with insanely good health, even when they don't take care of themselves.

While it's not good for you in excessive quantities, I'm not so sure that it's addictive. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't notice any problems massively reducing my sugar intake: certainly nothing that felt like cravings or dependency, and I do seem to have a fairly addiction-prone personality.

When you have these kind of questions, you turn to the original research. That is where the methodology, results, etc. are described.

It was just you. lol And lucky you at that! If I don't have sugar, especially after eating something salty or "healthy" - I will actually start to have symptoms. I get shakey, cranky, and just overall feel like I'm going to crawl out of my skin. Which to me, sounds like addiction. (And I know a lot of other people who claim the same thing.) It's not an excuse either, because I desperately want to stop eating so much of the stuff.

Though maybe I'm not the best judge... because I never had any issues giving up more serious things that were supposedly "addictions". Drugs, drinking, smoking, eh.. easy. Donuts, soda, and cake? Gah... failure everyday.

Sometimes I just confuse myself and everyone around me for the fun of it. Yeah...

I agree. I also think it's strange to specify white sugar as opposed to other sugars like brown sugar, unprocessed sugar, or corn syrup.

It stinks of "processed foods control your mind" and "white bread causes cancer".

Only if it's fizzy. Fizz causes cancer.

That sounds like me. On a good day. But I won't deny that people respond to things differently; it doesn't help to castigate someone for having trouble with that sort of stuff either, so I won't.

I have a real sweet tooth. I can't go a day without at least having something sweet. Not much, just a little bit. I couldn't give it up for good!

Science reporting isn't the same as science. The BS headlines extracted from good studies don't suddenly make those good studies worthless. Sensationalism is almost always wrong, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore the science.

Unfortunately, the science isn't always easy to get at. Most studies are just someone paying for a very specific result, then sending a very carefully-worded press release to the media so they'll all parrot those exact same carefully chosen words. Press releases don't always have links to the source, and the source isn't always online. Sometimes you have to make calls to find out what was studied and how, sometimes it's not available at all. Often it takes months for the scientific community at large to actually get their hands on a study, and meanwhile the public read the press release and took it as fact long ago.

There are facts in every study and more legitimate-in-general studies out there, but with so many billions of dollars in the industry, there are just way too many fingers in the pie. One study will overstate the dangers of a substance to sell diet pills and supplements and competing products, and another will understate them to keep selling the product. A study might find a 0.01 disease rate in a group that doesn't use a product, and a 0.02 rate in those that do. If your funders are supporting it? No statistically significant difference. If your funders want bad news? This product doubles your risks of disease! It gets so tiresome trying to filter out what is or isn't crap, especially when science is still advancing and our understanding of the issue in general is steadily changing.