New High Fructose Corn Syrup Study

ardichoke

Just got sent an interesting article by one of my coworkers. Some Princeton researchers released results of some long term studies of the effects of HFCS vs. regular table sugar. The results aren't all that surprising but they do codify what has been suspected for some time, HFCS contributes to weight gain much faster than standard table sugar.

http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/food-science/princeton-proves-high-fructose-corn-syrup-woes-once-for-all-112003

Though I'm no health nut, it's stuff like this that has inspired me to avoid HFCS as much as I possibly can. Problem is when you start reading those labels you realize it's EVERYWHERE.

primesuspect

Almost anything from one of the major American corporate food conglomerates (Kraft, General Mills, etc.) that comes in a box, bag, or other package that you buy at a grocery store, and almost everything from corporate chain restaurants (including fast food and places like Chili's and Olive Garden) are completely loaded with HFCS. It is insidious, ubiquitous, and for the most part, people are just starting to wise up to how common it is.

mas0n

Yay, corn subsidies!

Myrmidon

ardichoke wrote:

The results aren't all that surprising...

Actually, the results ARE all that surprising. You're just used to hearing people say 'corn syrup is bad for you and it's making us all fatties blah blah blah' whenever it comes up. In reality, corn syrup is really, REALLY similar to table sugar, and the biggest difference between the two is that after metabolization, HFCS gives you more glucose molecules per gram. That's why it was originally "bad" for you - it's simply more energy dense.

The reason these results are surprising is that they gave the rats the <u>same</u> amount (or less) of fructose/glucose/sucrose molecules in HFCS form as they did in table sugar form - RATHER than simply same weights or volumes... and the results STILL showed HFCS causing problems.

By the way, the article (and the one it links to) doesn't EXPRESSLY say the energy density was the same in each case - just that the HFCS concentrations are 'lower than that found in soda.' However, if they didn't make the energy densities the same, this paper probably wouldn't have been published, as it wouldn't have shown anything. So I think it's a safe bet.

By the way, as a disclaimer, I currently can't find the findings in "Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior" online, and it's bothering the HELL out of me. I'm sure it's there, my searches just don't find it on their website - even when logged in at my university.

ardichoke

Aye, corn subsidies are a load of BS. IF the government really needs to subsidize food, it should at least be food that isn't so blatantly bad for us. Even in it's natural form, corn is far less nutritious than just about any other vegetable. Or so I've read.

Myrmidon

Hey, you can't say that to an iowa boy!

ardichoke

Sure I can. Iowa is fully capable of growing other crops besides corn. In fact, I bet other crops would grow better given that corn is very harsh on the soil and requires lots of fertilizer.

fatcat

corn on the cob wrapped in foil cooked on a campfire loaded with butter and salt > all other vegetables

ardichoke

fatcat wrote:

corn on the cob wrapped in foil cooked on a campfire loaded with butter and salt -> heart attack

fix'd

WagsFTW

I also saw that study, and have been trying to avoid HFCS. The best things to look for are organic items. I used to eat Yoplait yogurt everyday, but found that most yogurts except for organic yogurt have HFCS in them. The easiest solution is to purchase organic foods. At grocery stores like Meijer, it actually isn't much more expensive, since Meijer has their own organic brand and a lot more brands are coming out with organic things. People are finally wising up on this stuff.

primesuspect

It's just too bad that the average american can't afford to easily eat healthy.

ardichoke

Indeed. The more wages stagnate in this country while cost of living goes up, the less people can afford to eat healthy and actually cook their meals instead of getting fast food.

fatcat

primesuspect wrote:

It's just too bad that the average american can't afford to easily eat healthy.

you are NOT average Brian, sorry

GnomeQueen

I actually read the other day that Walmart is producing a lot of healthy, organic vegetables these days in conjunction with local farmers. They can sell them cheaper because there's no transportation costs involved, and it's actually helping to improve local farmers and produce.

GnomeQueen

I disagree- I think that the average american can easily afford to eat healthy. Eat healthy and eat with a lot of variety? Perhaps not.

GnomeQueen

And really guys- While HFCS are slightly worse than sugar, the issue isn't eating them over sugar, it's eating either of them at all. Cut down on your sugar and HFCS, and you'll be healthier.

..Sorry for the triple posting...

ardichoke

Jeebus H Triplepost GQ...

Also, from my reading of the article, it seems that HFCS isn't just a little worse, it's quite a bit worse.

Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds.

fatcat

everyone quit doing anything that might be bad for you. like breathing. GO!

Thrax

It costs me a shade under $200 a month to eat 100% whole grains, chicken, vegetables, some pop, spices, etc.

Everyone here knows how cleanly I eat.

I am, by all respects, an average American. I am low middle class, I make just enough to get by.

Koreish

And unlike the average American you have the will and the drive to eat healthy and stay fit.

AlexDeGruven

Actually, HFCS has a slightly higher fructose than glucose content. The problem comes in because fructose is not broken down as easily as glucose, and is much more likely to be stored, where glucose is readily burned as energy and requires a much higher content before storage occurs.

Myrmidon wrote:

Actually, the results ARE all that surprising. You're just used to hearing people say 'corn syrup is bad for you and it's making us all fatties blah blah blah' whenever it comes up. In reality, corn syrup is really, REALLY similar to table sugar, and the biggest difference between the two is that after metabolization, HFCS gives you more glucose molecules per gram. That's why it was originally "bad" for you - it's simply more energy dense.

I can't find the study report I saw, but I'm pretty sure as far as kCal goes, they were equalized.

Myrmidon wrote:

The reason these results are surprising is that they gave the rats the <u>same</u> amount (or less) of fructose/glucose/sucrose molecules in HFCS form as they did in table sugar form - RATHER than simply same weights or volumes... and the results STILL showed HFCS causing problems.

By the way, the article (and the one it links to) doesn't EXPRESSLY say the energy density was the same in each case - just that the HFCS concentrations are 'lower than that found in soda.' However, if they didn't make the energy densities the same, this paper probably wouldn't have been published, as it wouldn't have shown anything. So I think it's a safe bet.

I personally avoid HFCS and table sugar like the plague because I have a phenomenally large glycemic response to fructose, and crash hard from the insulin overload (reactive hypoglycemia), and the crash is noticeably harder and quicker with HFCS than table sugar (I can sometimes avoid it if I load up on protein while, or immediately after eating something sugar-laden). I also have problems eating fruits sometimes because of their fructose contents.

I don't get the same reaction from things containing straight glucose.

So the real question in all of this: Can we say we've officially seen enough of those ridiculous 'Sweet Surprise' commercials now that there's real science behind us?

Cliff_Forster

primesuspect wrote:

It's just too bad that the average american can't afford to easily eat healthy.

I've been saving money since I have changed my lifestyle. I eat out less, and common whole fruits and veggies really don't cost that much when you consider the volume you can eat compared to the fast food junk I have been stuffing myself with for years.

Plus, you have to look at it this way. What investment is greater than your own health? Pay me now/pay me later, but either way, your gonna pony up your share. If the american's scraping to get by think that diabetes and high blood pressure meds are going to cost less they are fooling themselves.

Seriously, that bag of grapes, and sack of apples really doesn't cost that much more than the box of pop tarts, and the tasty cakes.

Plus look, there are healthy foods that are cheap, cheap, cheap... Oatmeal, rice, bananas, eggs (in moderation), pasta, tuna fish, frozen veggies, all generally pretty damn cheap.

And, when you see a sale for that skinless chicken breast, buy a little extra, bag it up and freeze it.

Eating healthy costs more, is a myth.

AlexDeGruven

If you try to eat healthy without planning ahead, it can end up costing you a lot more. And that's where the problem lies. Americans don't want to plan ahead and end up eating on the fly, rather than putting together 'real' food that's much healthier.

ZenMode

Sugar is an enemy of good health in general - regardless of the form. You can overeat fruit just like you can any processed HFCS junk food, they'll both have a similar effect in the end.

Cliff_Forster

ZenMode wrote:

Sugar is an enemy of good health in general - regardless of the form. You can overeat fruit just like you can any processed HFCS junk food, they'll both have a similar effect in the end.

Its a hell of allot more fulfilling to eat three apples (about 20g of natural sugar each) than it is to drink a 20 oz Cola (a little over 60 g of sugar through HFCS)

Natural sugar with fiber = win for your body.

ZenMode

I'm not suggesting that fruit isn't a more efficient way of acquiring nutrition in your body, I'm simply saying that any excess of sugar, no matter how beneficial the other gains might be, will produce weight gain.

Thrax

And reduced metabolic function through insulin response.

ardichoke

but not all sugars are created equal, so if you ARE going to eat sugar, it's better to eat the natural, slightly easier for your body to process correctly, sugar as opposed to the synthetic, hell on your body, HFCS.

Cliff_Forster

ZenMode wrote:

I'm not suggesting that fruit isn't a more efficient way of acquiring nutrition in your body, I'm simply saying that any excess of sugar, no matter how beneficial the other gains might be, will produce weight gain.

Your right, I'm just saying, an apple is a much more fulfilling source of sugar than a soda, or a candy bar.

ZenMode

Cliff_Forster wrote:

Your right, I'm just saying, an apple is a much more fulfilling source of sugar than a soda, or a candy bar.

I agree, but in general I stay away from most sugar - at least right now while I'm cutting. I just can't afford the calories anywhere.

ZenMode

Thrax wrote:

And reduced metabolic function through insulin response.

Also this ^