This study doesn't seem overly rigorous, but given the Peat perspective I have to wonder how the results are so negative? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160405182105.htm
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
associated with a 3 times greater risk
Yes, the "causes" was click bait, but I have to wonder how if sugar is so protective that it can even be associated with a 3 times greater risk. Correlational studies are a poor substitute for causes, but with human studies it's morally difficult to use anything but correlational studies.