New High Fructose Corn Syrup Study
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.
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.
0
Comments
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.
fix'd
you are NOT average Brian, sorry
..Sorry for the triple posting...
Also, from my reading of the article, it seems that HFCS isn't just a little worse, it's quite a bit worse.
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.
I can't find the study report I saw, but I'm pretty sure as far as kCal goes, they were equalized.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Also this ^