Replies

I have seen studies that have seen differences in the metabolic transmitters to the brain satiety region with high fructose corn syrup

Hopefully those studies will explain how glucose and fructose from high fructose corn syrup differ from glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose. If the satiety profiles are different then the formulas and structures of glucose and fructose from one would have to be different than the other. They're not.

Sucrose is hydrolyzed very quickly in the gut and shouldn't vary much from hfcs. If anything, high fructose corn syrup, a monsaccharide, should get glucose into your blood sooner and, therefore, create a feeling of fullness faster than sucrose. This is the opposite of what you're claiming.

One particular study in 2004 reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition cites the increase in consumption of HFCS to be 1000% between 1970 and 1990. They calculated this to exceed any equivalent increase in consumption of any other food or food group.

Take a few moments for yourself when you go to the mall sometime and count how many overweight people you see as opposed to people with normal body weight. I was amazed when I did it during the Christmas shopping season. One thing that I found that I have no answer for is how few Asians were overweight. Are there any answers for this observation?

Furthermore, with the AJ of CN study, in studying this increase — and the nearly identically corresponding increase in obesity in the US — these researchers took into account the differences in the way the body responds to different sorts of sugars. Specifically, that “unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production.” They postulate that dietary fructose may be contributing to American obesity issues because “insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight.” In other words, this study proposes that because fructose doesn’t trip our sense of satiety as sugar would, we are, perhaps, eating more sugars to compensate, and upping overall caloric intake in the process. Further, they extrapolate that because HFCS is usually higher in fructose than table sugar, HFCS can be correlated with parallel increases in obesity.

I predict that the use of HFCS as a fuel source in the production of methanol will drive the price upward as it competes for its use in the food industry. With the recent dietary revelations maybe it would be wise if we can divert some of that HFCS to methanol production after all.

Just want to interject here that I believe the problem with HFCT is that because it was readily available and fairly cheap, food manufacturers have been putting it into all sorts of processed foods that would normally not have sugar added. I have seen it as an ingredient in hot dogs, spaghetti sauce, chicken pot pies, and salad dressings.

None of those items, if made at home, would require sugar. So how come it's put in the processed versions? The only thing I can think of is that the sweet taste camouflages what would otherwise be a bland recipe.

This is my non-scientific observation, and as far as all of the technical stuff, I will leave it to people who know what they are talking about. I don't.