>>7116993Okay, so the study I gave is not completely conclusive, but at least it presents data that may support my point.
Let's take a look at the studies you've linked.
I'll give you the diabetes one. As an endnote on the article, they link two studies one of which says that fat consumption is linked, but with no other dietary factors taken into account.
The other study shows no correlation of diabetes and sugar consumption. This could be explained as genetics or again, other dietary factors.
But, ok I'll give you that one.
However, the other study about the soda drinking rats you straight up lie about the results.
3 groups of rats were given either water, light cola or cola as their primary liquid source.
>cola group ate slightly less food>no major weight deviations between groups>cola group consumed much more calories due to the sodaSo no, faggot, you cannot eat MORE without gaining weight because you're adding in calories from sugar. That's not what the study said happened.
Another thing, let's read the conclusion of this study:
>Based on the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that the daily ingestion of large amounts of fructose-rich soft drink by rats can lead to unfavorable alterations in serum lipid profiles and tissues lipid content. Such alterations were not observed with increased ingestion of soft drink low in fructose (light soft drinks). Therefore, the defects observed in the lipid profile are probably associated with the high fructose content of the soft drink.One last thing, I would like you to provide better evidence than "lol no" for the list of health problems the other anon gave you for sugar which you brushed off nonchalantly.
>heart disease>kidney disease>cancer>accelerated aging>depressionPlease, if you're going to be a jew shill, be better.