Posted on 05/30/2019 11:03:27 AM PDT by Red Badger
Many of us believe some kinds of sugar are somehow healthier.
High-fructose corn syrup has been a scapegoat for American obesity for the past decade and a half, so you might be surprised to learn that sugar and honey both have more fructose than high-fructose corn syrup.
Let’s break down the numbers here. Despite its misleading name, the most commonly used form of HFCS only has 42 percent fructose in comparison to table sugar’s 50 percent. Honey, the beloved natural sweetener, has 49 percent. Standard corn syrup doesn’t have any fructose because it’s 100 percent glucose, which explains how HFCS got its name: it was a kind of corn syrup with more fructose than normal.
This is true for every form of natural sugar you see advertised on organic food because sucrose, the molecule you know as sugar, is made up of one fructose molecule and one glucose molecule. Honey is a bit different, as its fructose and glucose molecules aren’t bound together, but instead are free-floating—much more like HFCS.
“People say you should use honey, but what’s interesting about honey is that because the sucrose is split apart [into glucose and fructose], you can fit a lot more of those molecules into a tablespoon,” says Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietician and consulting expert on dietary policy. “A tablespoon of honey has more calories than a tablespoon of table sugar.”
Now, it is true that your body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose, and products made with only fructose can cause metabolic issues as well as digestive problems. Pure fructose more directly impacts blood sugar, and eventually can lead to decreased insulin sensitivity and high triglycerides. But as a 2008 review of HFCS notes, those differences are irrelevant when talking about the health impacts of any of these commonly used sugars: “Sucrose, HFCS, invert sugar, honey, and many fruits and juices deliver the same sugars in the same ratios to the same tissues within the same time frame to the same metabolic pathways.”
Maybe the most confusing thing about the whole HFCS controversy is that there isn’t actually much scientific debate. Though there are still some questions as to how the body might process different types of sugar in distinct ways, the research thus far shows that the metabolic effects are exactly the same.
The confusion stems from a 2004 study that correlated HFCS consumption with obesity rates in the U.S., which at the time were fairly closely aligned. More and more food companies were using table sugar’s syrupy cousin because it has properties that make it ideal for making processed foods like soda and candy. Around the same time, Americans were growing fatter. The researchers were careful to note that, as always, correlation doesn’t imply causation. Perhaps the rise of HFCS coincided with an increase in processed food consumption or simply in total calories consumed, and the shift in sugar use had nothing to do with it.
But that didn’t stop other people, both scientists and journalists, from drawing much broader conclusions. Many parties took the paper to mean that there was something unique about HFCS that contributed to obesity. But the study never claimed to prove that, and subsequent research has shown exactly the opposite. As a 2014 review in the journal Diabetes Care put it: "the belief that sucrose is metabolized differently than HFCS is a myth. No study has shown any difference between the two when each is given [in the same caloric values], nor is there any difference in sweetness or caloric value."
In the time since that study, sugar consumption overall (including that of HFCS) has declined, even as obesity rates have continued to climb.
Of course, this is not to say that you should feel fine eating food with HFCS in it. Just remember that it’s the nature of those products—the fact that they’re often sugary drinks and processed foods—that make them bad for you. An equivalent product made with real cane sugar is just as bad. In fact, one review paper points out that soda’s acidity actually causes sucrose to split apart into its constituent molecules, meaning the can starts out containing common sugar but looks quite different, at the molecular level, by the time you drink it. The authors note, “It is a sweet irony that purists who must have their sucrose-sweetened sodas end up drinking a sweetener composition more similar to HFCS and have been doing so since the first cola was formulated in the 1880s.”
The message here is that you should absolutely avoid HFCS. But you should also be avoiding all forms of sugar equally. You should really only be getting six to nine teaspoons a day at a maximum, according to federal guidelines, but Americans consume close to 20 on average. If we all focused on sugar as one lump category rather than “natural” versus “unnatural,” we’d be better at making healthy choices. Even the sugar found in fruits is unhealthy if you eat too much of it. Go ahead and drizzle some honey on your toast because you like the taste—but don’t fool yourself into thinking the natural sources of sugar don't count as sweet treats.
Tags:
sugar high fructose corn syrup food Diet Health
At least the cane sugar started out as sugar..............
I’ve read that many major pizza chains add sugar to their pizza dough. Why? Sugar can help in the baking process. But studies have shown that kids will eat more pizza when the crust (and sauce) is sweeter.
No, sugars, which are all bad, are not all equally bad. Fructose is more problematic than Glucose or Sucrose. Fructose is handled like Alcohol in the liver. So, if you have liver disease of any shape or kind, then Fructose will be problematic. Its mostly problematic when you are having it in large doses. If you are bingeing on fruit or you are bingeing on fruity alcoholic sugary drinks even rum and Cokes (Coke is made with high fructose corn syrup) then your liver has a real tough time getting rid of the alcohol while its also getting rid of the Fructose. If the same drink was made with Mexican Coke which is made with sugar, than your liver would handle the alcohol while your body stores or burns the sucrose.
Fructose is a large cause of Alzheimer’s, Diabetes, and obesity. Carbs in general can cause all these things. But the large increase in our diet of Fructose is closely correlated with the increase of these diseases.
Exactly. Too many calories in too small a package...........
And rum is made from Sugar Cane!...................
Browns quicker...............
My understanding is that the Fructose and Sucrose is split in the HFCS where it’s not split in table Sugar. Similar to the claim they make about honey. Being pre-split makes it’s impact larger on the body.
In the time since that study, sugar consumption overall (including that of HFCS) has declined, even as obesity rates have continued to climb.
...
Thanks for poking a stick at people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts.
The problem with high-fructose corn syrup is that food products that use it are intended to be addictive imo.
Umm ... that was good. I’ll have another one.
Sugar is very unhealthy for many of us. My husband has type2 diabetes. It doesn’t matter the source, it’s all bad for him. His previous doctor sent him to a dietician who put him on the pyramid diet. He gained over 20 pounds in a year. It was a disaster. Two+ years ago, we went low-carb. He’s lost 70 pounds. Thank goodness, because most of the rest of my family has developed heart disease, except for me. None of them has been willing to make the change, sadly.
Men AND women had a harder life a hundred years ago (even in the city) and we were active human beings.
Today, we sit.
That’s why I won’t eat Pizza Hut anymore. The crust is too damn sweet!!!
Sugar is something that bonds to our blood as sucrose breaks down in the duodenum into glucose and fructose, going directly into the blood stream and giving the body a rush of insulin. The body soon becomes addicted.
An interesting quote:
“Of course, this is not to say that you should feel fine eating food with HFCS in it. Just remember that it’s the nature of those products—the fact that they’re often sugary drinks and processed foods—that make them bad for you. An equivalent product made with real cane sugar is just as bad.”
correlation is not causation. The fact is that most stuff made with HFCS is garbage you shouldn’t be putting you your body.
Actually, she’s a practicing witch, seriously.
I made beer in the 1970s. The beer shop sold me barley malt syrup and recommended an amount of sugar to bring alcohol levels up to a high normal for beer. They sold and recommended corn sugar as it was a simple sugar while cane sugar was a complex sugar and the yeast grown on complex sugars would impart an unwelcome taste as part of the natural break down during fermentation. I opted for a third process I read about. Dissolve the cane sugar in a small amount of hot water and a ad an amount of lemon juice whose acids would break down the compound sugar into multiple simple sugars. The flavor of the beer I made in this process was very good. I never did make enough beer in one batch to satisfy my craving for the beer.
Yes, absolutely it is worse than sugar, which is bad enough itself.
If you occasionally want a Coke, get un Coca-Cola real, hecho en Mejico com sugar real. Available at El Mercado or the dollar store.
If I drink a soda, it’ll be diet. Sugar Free. Because I like the taste of diet sodas far better than HFCS sodas.
Alcohol is bad for you?! Who knew? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.