Replies

I don't agree with this statement at all. You've offered absolutely no evidence that the food industry is more concerned with cost and shelf life than with the "salubrious." This is fact free nonsense. If you could prove there was anything unwholesome about HFCS, as a replacement for sucrose, you'd prove it here. Conclusion without evidence.....and you were a scientist?

I'm *DEEPLY* hurt you didn't mention Calvin and Hobbes!

The cost and shelf life was a *general* comment (my bad) -- I was thinking mainly of hydrogenated oils when I said it, with a small side order of "HFCS is cheaper than cane sugar."

Significant biochemically? Please. Are you aware that there is another commercialized form of HFCS that's only 42% fructose? Is that one better for you than the 55% fructose product? Fructose is cleared by another pathway, as opposed to glucose, but they both reach the Krebs cycle at the same level (3x2 carbon fragments).

I had forgotten about the 42% HFCS -- it's been years since I dealt with it, and that was indirect. I was wondering whether the body used different methods to *split* the sucrose as opposed to the HFCS, and if the different concentrations resulting in the bloodstream might subtly affect any cellular receptors different. By analogy, some people get instant headaches just *thinking* of MSG; if there are individual differences in sensitivity to different sugars, it might explain some of the societal obesity. But that'd be devilishly difficult to prove given timing, portion sizes, etc. etc. Just surmising, not attempting a declarative statement.

Why would this even matter? The Glycemic Index for sucrose and HFCS fall in the 55-60 range. The satiation profiles of both, for the purposes of this discussion, are the same.

See my last paragraph -- not satiety, but metabolism fat storage. Just wondering: you know, as both leptin and ghrelin used to be unknown, and still aren't familiar to the general public, the idea popped into my head there still may be internal workings as yet unstudied. (Nutrisystem is just getting around to popularizing "good carbs" vs. "bad carbs" for example.)

From Martine Perrigue and colleagues at the University of Washington: One question is whether HFCS-sweetened beverages have a different satiety profile from sucrose-sweetened ones. This study examined the relative impact of 16 oz. beverage preloads on motivational ratings and energy intakes at a test meal, using a within-subject design. Participants were 19 men and 18 women, aged 20-30 y.

Thanks -- a good start, but only 37 people, all in their 20's? Alas! the perils of medical studies and small sample sizes! (...also no mention of controls on size/type of breakfast, fitness level of participants, exercise type, duration, time *during* this study, and what happened when the drinks were consumed *instead of* food. Not trying to make excuses, but the real world population has a lot of variables. All the same, I'm glad someone started to look.

That's a polite way of saying Sears is lying. Creating fear by misrepresenting the results of "research", or the research itself, must help him sell his books.

I didn't think he as doing it to inspire fear, but to water down the science for the general public. Without having his book at hand, I can't comment further.

The study found "no differences in the metabolic effects" of HFCS and sucrose in this short-term study, and called for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. ("Similar effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin,"

Again, a good start, but it'd be interesting to look at obese people, men, and longer-term effects. (E.g. type 2 diabetes, or "Syndrome X" (as I've heard it called), don't show up right away). Again, I'm glad someone is starting to look. Thanks for letting me know.

Cheers!

The cost and shelf life was a *general* comment (my bad) -- I was thinking mainly of hydrogenated oils when I said it, with a small side order of "HFCS is cheaper than cane sugar."

Do you also think TFA's, like HFCS, are bad for you too? This thread provides some solid information on why people that demonize trans fats don't understand trans fats.

Trans Fatty Nation

I was wondering whether the body used different methods to *split* the sucrose as opposed to the HFCS, and if the different concentrations resulting in the bloodstream might subtly affect any cellular receptors different.

Once sucrase hydrolyzes sucrose into glucose and fructose there is no difference in HFCS and sucrose. HFCS is a free sugar...no bonds to break down.

By analogy, some people get instant headaches just *thinking* of MSG; if there are individual differences in sensitivity to different sugars, it might explain some of the societal obesity.

You ever wonder why people who have sensitivities to added glutamate don't have the same sensitivities to natural occurring glutamate? There's no difference between bound glutamate and free glutamate. I don't know why anyone would think that "sensitivity" to sugars would be a cause of obesity in any way. Obesity is cause by people consuming more calories than they burn. Some people always look for something else to blame for why they are the way they are - especially when they see themselves as a victim and cannot manage to take any personal responsibility. May as well just blame obesity on a fat gene.

I'm not sure what your concerns are regarding metabolism or what that has to do with HFCS. There was very little research on leptin and ghrelin (at least that I was aware of) when I kept up with this stuff. Since then, there have lots of studies done and none of them, at least that I've seen, show that HFCS and sucrose are absorbed and metabolized differently and that they have a differing effect on leptin and ghrelin.

(Nutrisystem is just getting around to popularizing "good carbs" vs. "bad carbs" for example.)

Good crabs vs. bad carbs? Good grief, is this what the debate has been dumbed down to? They may as well be debating the number of angels on the head of a pin.

These studies should first be conducted on people with healthy bodies. It's the unhealthy ones that throw in all sorts of other variables and unknowns. There has been a lot more research done on this but I just haven't taken the time to find it. If there had been any shattering results we would have heard about it...probably right here on FR.

I didn't think he as doing it to inspire fear, but to water down the science for the general public. Without having his book at hand, I can't comment further.

Huh? Fear creates alarm and gets the media's attention. How do you think these guys sell books? Sears wrote an article called toxic fat. If the FR search function worked you could find a thread about it here. In the article he comes to all sorts of conclusions without any references. He identifies three fatty acids as causing hormonal activity. That's nonsense and I've even taken the time to email some colleagues who keep up on this and it gave them a good laugh. Sears may be a well educated in biochem and food science but, apparently, money has lured him to the dark side. In an earlier time he'd have been hawking snake oil from a cart with his university credentials placed prominently for all to see.

Keep an eye on Ho's research regarding carbonyls. I think he believes he's found the smoking gun. If so, it will change everything and we could see a rapid ban on HFCS. He's a first class researcher who is not driven by the dollar.