I didn't realise that HCFS and Sucrose were so close in composition of glucose and fructose, but the following two articles point out that there is still a difference. In Sucrose the two sugars are bound and requires additional processing by the liver, whereas, in HCFS the fructose is unbound and is converted to fat faster. There's also something about a substance called Carbonyls liked to HCFS that is not in sugar.
Sugars are not the same
Carbonyls
difference described (not scientific source but appears consistent with more scientific articles)
Differences 2
Carbonyls 2
And I agree with you about being skeptical about studies because of the money backing them. But the HCFS producers and the artificial sugar producers have a lot of money.
That's the main problem with letting gov't regulate this stuff. It's likely to come down to who has paid for the most junk science instead of what is really healthy. I don't need scientific studies to know that I don't want to have to breathe second hand smoke from inconsiderate smokers in public buildings. But I don't want government taxing sugar when it might be healthier than all the alternatives except abstinence.
Thanks for the links. Both of those have been used in the past on the forum to suggest that the consumption of diet drinks increase weight gain. The studies claim that the taste function can control or influence the amount of calories that go into our bodies. This is not how the body is set up and contradicts what we've learned about hunger and satiation. These people seem to believe that the body's genetic structure can be overridden.
These studies also suggest sweet gustation exercises a level of control over the body's satiation and hunger mechanisms. These studies have also suggested that when the trigeminal nerves recognize thickness, it tells the body that calories are coming and satiation begins. Although your senses are able to cause hormonal activity in the body, these researchers are wrong when they suggest that the body can learn to determine, through taste or texture, what amount of calories are being consumed. I've never seen any research that proves this is so. Suggestion and correlation may get you additional grant money from the NIH but it is certainly a long way from proving anything.
What the article here is saying is that people who consume beverages sweetened artificially will crave carbs, and overeat more, than those who use sucrose. That makes no sense to me and defies what we know about hunger and satiation.
In Sucrose the two sugars are bound and requires additional processing by the liver
Sucrose is bound but HFCS is free. That's true. Those bonds are broken down in the gut by a common enzyme called sucrase. This breakdown occurs quickly and once hydrolyzed, the body cannot tell the difference between fructose and glucose from HFCS or fructose and glucose from sucrose.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver. Since there is almost identical quantities of fructose in HFCS and sucrose I don't know why they would make the distinction.
Carbonyls are highly reactive and could end up being significant in the debate. Dr. Ho at Rutgers is looking into this possibility and, knowing him, I can say he is a first class researcher. At this point this is simply a possibility but one worthy of continued study.
But the HCFS producers and the artificial sugar producers have a lot of money.
Corn syrup is a low margin business and HFCS isn't all that much better. Sugar receives protection from the government totaling more than $2.5 billion annually. Of course, the fact that these are big businesses doesn't make them sinister in any way. Kinda like the people who demonize big oil when they know absolutely nothing about the industry.
It's likely to come down to who has paid for the most junk science instead of what is really healthy.
As much as I dislike the FDA, I give them credit for ignoring the junk science, for the most part, when it would be easier for them to fold to the food police and penalize industry based on stupidity.
I don't need scientific studies to know that I don't want to have to breathe second hand smoke from inconsiderate smokers in public buildings.
I don't like breathing second hand smoke either but I know enough about it to realize it isn't dangerous to me. Personally, I don't smoke but what the fedgov and nanny staters have done to those who wish to smoke is a travesty.
But I don't want government taxing sugar when it might be healthier than all the alternatives except abstinence.]
Given government's record with social engineering I want them to stay the hell out of the debate all the time. I'd rather they lived within their means, providing only what the Constitution requires, and stop taxing these things altogether. But that's just me.