Posted on 10/25/2011 8:59:04 AM PDT by Red Badger
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.
"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.
The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.
The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.
"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes." In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity.
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.
In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.
"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said.
The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.
In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet -- the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda -- and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite.
The research was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.
Then it must have been someone else who claimed that taking issue with this study meant they were "pimping health hazards" (HFCS). Anyone who said such a thing believes in something that is founded in emotion, not sound science. This person, whomever he is, is in possession of a bizarro belief system based in ignorance or is intentionally disregarding the facts.
Allowing my comments on this thread to cause you to label me a "shill" must also be based on some bizarre belief system that has nothing to do with sound science. I'd expect someone making such a claim to defend that lame assertion, but you are incapable of doing anything other than whining about alleged ad hominems.
An honest reader of this thread would see something very different than what you see. You're looking at this thread with a jaundiced eye because my take on this is very different from your bizarre and anti-science based feelings.
It appears you don't like the tone of my posts to you. Maybe you should grow some thicker skin if your fist post to someone is going to call them an industry shill...or the purveyor of corn in search of a customer...ADM is evil blah, blah, blah kind of idiocy.
There's no panic in my approach to this. You can either provide evidence to support whatever it is you're arguing for or you can't. So far you've offered nothing but complaints.
If you consume more energy than you burn you will gain weight. The source of that energy isn't nearly as important as the total calories. Demonizing one macronutrient over another may be an effective means for selling diet advice, but it offers little of importance beyond that. Telling people that controlling your weight is simply a matter of energy in vs. energy used isn't the kind of information people are willing to pay for. That's unfortunate.
I can lose weight on a high carbohydrate too as long as I burn more calories than I consume. Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day when he's in training and admits that he's a carbohydrate junkie. He's pretty cut for a guy who loves his carbs.
Are you going to take the bet or are you going to continue to blather on about you supposed expertise in human metabolism?
“Hydrolyzed sucrose (regular old table sugar) and HFCS are metabolized in the same manner. There is no difference between them when it comes to how they are absorbed by the body. Fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose. All this fear is based on a misunderstanding of basic nutrition.”
Hi, this endocrinologist(the guy in the video, not me) says different. It’s a 45 minute video that I watched all of and highly recommend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
It also appears that you're claiming the first law of thermodynamics is no longer valid. If true, I'm sure there are a lot of people here who would be interested in knowing more.
Finally, and while you're thumping your chest, the other guy could sure use some help defending the junk science that is the topic of the thread. You got anything that can help him.... other than steroids?
What does he say exactly that provides evidence that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is chemically different, and is metabolized by the body in a different manner, than glucose and fructose from HFCS?
I cannot recite the difference. I do remember that he asserts that there is a very big difference, something like fructose is metabolized more like ethanol, with the attendant harm.
He delves into organic chemistry in great detail. This is not my area of expertise but this guy is pretty darn convincing.
I do not wish to get into a fight here, I commented before realizing that it was pretty heated on this thread. But I have watched the video and was very surprised. I’d like your opinion after watching the presentation.
Absolutely. My 20-carb diet (which took me, a petite 5'3" woman from 150 to 125 in five months - THANKFULLY) was as high as I wanted it to be in calories. But I didn't feel hungry. No cravings. What glorious freedom - to enjoy food at meals and not feel hungry! My stomach would actually growl, and I'd think - "oh, it must be hungry," but I was fine with that.
I had been a horrible 150 for three years no matter what I tried.
If I had hours a day to work out, I might lose the effects from carbs. But I'm not a professional athlete, and I don't have the luxury of time - I have children. That said, a few minutes of exercise a day is incredibly important, of course.
That said, I am not in favor of the government prescribing any diet advice. That is a dreadful course that we've been on since George McGovern went on the Pritkin diet and decided it would be good for everyone to stuff themselves with bread and feel guilty about fats. He's a mass murderer.
I meant to say high fructose corn syrup not high fructose sugar in my initial post. Sorry about that.
You claim that I am "ill informed" but go on to say something sophomoric like "The bottom line is the human body is complex and not all calories are created equal."
This statement proves, beyond any doubt, that you are in way over your head here, and your bravado is nothing more than a coping mechanism for that fact. This is the kind of thing someone says who has had little or no education in biochemistry and human physiology. It's a common "tell" that separates those who took the time to learn the subject and the posers who act like they know it simply because they read a few books....or because they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Let me explain it to you in simple terms even you should be able to understand: A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. This is how it is defined and it is always the same no matter what. Metabolizing fat, carbs and amino acids will all require different pathways and the efficiencies will not be the same for all of those processes. This is understood. Even so, a calorie is always a calorie.
You're a poser who uses bravado to hide the fact that your knowledge is only skin deep. That's why you are unable to respond to anything I've posted and, instead, resort to some asinine bet that only proves that you're a horses rear end.
You did manage to say one thing that's true. The human body is indeed complex. At least you are capable of stating the obvious.
Now, if you can ever manage to explain how I can lose weight if I consume more calories from fat and protein than I burn, I'm all ears. I won't be holding my breath.
Anyway, Lustig is a well educated and eloquent man but he is very wrong in his assessment of fructose. Lustig likes saying that fructose is ethanol without the buzz. He also claims that they are both metabolized in the same manner. That's nonsense. Ethanol and fructose utilize completely different pathways. Alcohol converts to acid aldehyde and then into acetyl CoA. To do so, an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase is employed. This enzyme doesn't even figure in fructose metabolization. The metabolization of fructose and ethanol are not similar at all. Prolonged excessive consumption of ethanol can lead to liver fibrosis. Fructose consumption will not lead to this kind of organ damage.
Lustig claims that ethanol is a carbohydrate. It isn't. He also says that fructose is a toxin. It is not. The liver easily converts fructose to glucose. Of course, if you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen.
In the video, Lustig says that fructose in fruit is fine because it has fiber. He believes that a fiber dosage per gram of sugar makes fructose from fruit just fine while fructose from sucrose is toxic. I believe he said the fiber inhibits the absorption of sugar. That sounds bizarre to me but who knows.
Finally, Lustig asserts that fructose increases subsequent food intake. He doesn't make clear why that is but I believe he thinks that sugar doesn't elicit satiation. If so, he's way off base here again.
I don't know why he says the things he does. He must have an agenda of some sort, but I have no idea what that agenda is. That's my two cents anyway. FWIW.
Grass.
Grass-fed herds are much healthier and so is the meat for us.
Mase, Thank you. That is an interesting response. I think that you are both persuasive.
Grass.
Grass-fed herds are much healthier and so is the meat for us.”
Actually 98% of the beef in the store is grain-fed and the fat from such beef is pro-inflammatory, especially to the cardiovascular system. Grass-fed is much healthier, as you pointed out, and the reason is the fat is biochemically different—it is not damaging to the CV system. I just butchered a home-grown grass-fed steer two days ago.
Hidden sugars don’t stay hidden for long!
They magically appear around my waist!............
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.