Posted on 06/26/2013 12:02:26 AM PDT by neverdem
First, there are studies that “prove” almost anything. HFCS happens to be the villain of the moment. There are just as many studies and scientists who say that our bodies treat HFCS the same as any other sugar.
Second, the reason we have HFCS is everything is another unintended consequence of government interference in the market. Due to the protections given to sugar growers in the US, we pay an inflated price for cane sugar. Food companies switched to HFCS to save money. I don’t like HFCS because of the taste. I think the health concerns are overblown.
BTW, another consequence of sugar quotas and tariffs is that poor countries in the Caribbean can’t sell us their sugar and remain poor. Instead of trade, we give them massive amounts of foreign aide. As a result of the demands of sugar growers and the peridy of politicians, American consumers and taxpayers get the shaft.
Now that corn is becoming increasingly expensive due to another government boondoggle, ethanol, perhaps manufacturers will go back to sugar, even though it still costs more than it should.
Whew. That stuff can be hard on yer liver...
High Fructose Corn Syrup is 55% fructose - and it’s that, in particular, that is the largest single source of calories in the Standard American Diet.
It’s high-density caloric content, the body doesn’t handle so much so quickly, so it quickly just turns it to fat.
There are just as many studies and scientists who say that our bodies treat HFCS the same as any other sugar.Exactly. HFCS is just as toxic as sucrose.
If HFCS is bad for you then so is sucrose.Exactly.
Either one, in moderation, is not bad for you in any way - unless you're a diabetic.Actually, the body can handle quite high doses of either - occasionally. It's chronic consumption at "moderate" levels that causes the problems.
In post #36 you said corn syrup. Are you talking about corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup? They are two very different products. Additionally, there are two forms of hfcs being used today in foods and beverages. One is 55% fructose, and is used primarily in beverages, the other is 42% fructose, and is used mostly in foods, especially bakery.
and it’s that, in particular, that is the largest single source of calories in the Standard American Diet.
Yeah, American consume more sugar than they should, mostly from beverages. So what? They are essentially identical products, so it really doesn't matter if manufacturers use sucrose or hfcs in their products.
Just about everything is toxic in the right quantities. Making a statement that sucrose is just as toxic as HFCS is meaningless.
As any student who has taken a class in toxicology can tell you, Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.
A healthy body is easily capable of handling high amounts of either, that is true.
It's chronic consumption at "moderate" levels that causes the problems.
Chronic consumption? What does that mean? Are you trying to tell us that moderate consumption of table sugar causes problems? Really? My grandmother lived to be 96 and ate what I would consider to be a lot more than a moderate amount of sugar on a daily basis.
What do you define as moderate, and what "problems" does this kind of consumption lead to?
intake of high calories may play a role in the development of obesity
Well, now, THERE is some news for you!
That’s just a bunch of new age, psychobabble hooey! Next you’ll say that exercising and eating less leads to weight loss!
No, just excess fructose in general. Look at the titles:
"Fructose: A Key Factor in the Development of Metabolic Syndrome and Hypertension"
"Dietary fructose induces endotoxemia and hepatic injury in calorically controlled primates"
DakotaGator wrote:
"I have long suspected that the massive shift from cane sugar to corn syrup as our primary food sweetener has been the primary cause of the stunning increase in the nation’s obesity. I have also been very suspicious of corn syrup’s link to diabetes."
Some people will say that's just a coincidence, and that it's just the excess calories being consumed by couch potatoes. This is what nails it for me, a brand new pathology.
Steatohepatitis in obese children: a cause of chronic liver dysfunction.
AbstractAm J Gastroenterol. 1983 Jun;78(6):374-7.
Adult obese patients have been reported to present with hepatic abnormalities characterized by fatty hepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis. These abnormalities however, have not been reported to occur in children. We report three obese children with steatohepatitis that presented with nonspecific abdominal pain and abnormal liver-function tests. Obese children should have a thorough investigation of their liver function even in the absence of symptoms or signs.
It's called non alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD, or non alcoholic steatohepatitis, NASH, or hepatic steatosis. A rose is still a rose. It was not described before HFCS came on the scene. It's not in my medical dictionary or my pathology book, both from the 1980s.
It's chronic consumption at "moderate" levels that causes the problems. Chronic consumption? What does that mean? Are you trying to tell us that moderate consumption of table sugar causes problems? Really?
Really:
Although healthy individuals without diabetes have a normal, fasting blood glucose value of less than 6 mmol/l (or 108 mg/dl) glucose, the researchers found that over several years, just a slight increase (1 mmol/l or 18mg/dl) in blood glucose increases the risk of heart attack by 69%.
That's my point. From personal experience, if I cut out foods with HFCS my appetite decreases. When my appetite decreases...do I really have to spell it out.
It is just really hard to cut HFCS out of our diet, it is in everything. Also, I quite eating corn, (very hard to do cause I love it.) Corn is what we add to feed to fatten up stears and pigs. Which is what got me to experiment with eliminating HFCS out of my diet in the first place.
This was an observational study. Observational studies, as opposed to randomly controlled experimental studies, are fraught with pitfalls. But you knew that, right?
Costs for controlled trial studies can be very expensive, which is why observational studies have become so popular with medical researchers. They are easier, quicker, and cost much less money.
This is why the authors of your cited study offer this important disclaimer: Observational studies are not enough to document a correlation between elevated blood glucose and heart disease.
This study may end up being important. It may not be. Time will tell. But to offer it up as something that supports your contention that consuming sugar(s) in moderation is responsible for all sorts of health problems is, well, silly. I would also conclude from your comments that you think the consumption of sugar in this country is out of control. If this is true, and your linked research is also true, then the incidence of heart disease in this country should be skyrocketing. Unfortunately for you, the exact opposite is occurring.
Ok, but it has absolutely nothing to do with HFCS. HFCS has replaced sucrose on about a one-to-one basis since the mid seventies in this country. Where they once used sucrose, they now use HFCS. You can thank the protectionists in Congress who protect a small number of cane farmers at the expense of millions.
HFCS and sucrose fall into the same range on the glycemic index, and their satiety profiles are pretty much the same as well.
You'll be surprised to know that the increase in obesity is also a serious problem in countries that do not use HFCS in their foods.
We feed corn to steers and pigs because it has a high oil content which fattens them up and provides much desired marbling in the meat. Instead of removing corn from your diet, you should simply eat less food and burn more energy. That's a sure way to lose weight and keep it off.
I used to think like that too, but then I saw the actual numbers of idealized HFCS-55. It's 55 % fructose, 42 % glucose and 3 % other sugars. That's almost 4 grams of fructose for every 3 grams of glucose. If it was a calorie from fructose is the same as a calorie from glucose, then it wouldn't make a difference. Evidence keeps accumulating that it's not, especially in regard to de novo lipogenesis.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The results of short-term studies in humans suggest that, compared with glucose, acute consumption of fructose leads to increased postprandial energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation and decreased postprandial fat oxidation. The objective of this study was to determine the potential effects of increased fructose consumption compared with isocaloric glucose consumption on substrate utilization and energy expenditure following sustained consumption and under energy-balanced conditions. Subjects/Methods: As part of a parallel arm study, overweight/obese male and female subjects, 40–72 years, consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were assessed using indirect calorimetry at baseline and during the 10th week of intervention.Results: Consumption of fructose, but not glucose, led to significant decreases of net postprandial fat oxidation and significant increases of net postprandial carbohydrate oxidation (P<0.0001 for both). Resting energy expenditure (REE) decreased significantly from baseline values in subjects consuming fructose (P=0.031) but not in those consuming glucose.
Conclusions: Increased consumption of fructose for 10 weeks leads to marked changes of postprandial substrate utilization including a significant reduction of net fat oxidation. In addition, we report that REE is reduced compared with baseline values in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks.
--snip--
Body weight and composition
As reported previously (Stanhope et al., 2009), despite comparable weight gain (~1–2% of initial body weight) during the 8-week outpatient intervention, subjects consuming fructose primarily exhibited increases of visceral adipose tissue, whereas in subjects consuming glucose subcutaneous adipose tissue was preferentially increased.
Abstract The consumption of fructose, largely in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), has risen over the past several decades and is thought to contribute negatively to metabolic health. However, the fructose content of foods and beverages produced with HFCS is not disclosed and estimates of fructose content are based on the common assumption that the HFCS used contains 55% fructose. The objective of this study was to conduct an objective laboratory analysis of the sugar content and composition in popular sugar-sweetened beverages with a particular focus on fructose content. Twenty-three sugar-sweetened beverages along with four standard solutions were analyzed for sugar profiles using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in an independent, certified laboratory. Total sugar content was calculated as well as percent fructose in the beverages that use HFCS as the sole source of fructose. Results showed that the total sugar content of the beverages ranged from 85 to 128% of what was listed on the food label. The mean fructose content in the HFCS used was 59% (range 47-65%) and several major brands appear to be produced with HFCS that is 65% fructose. Finally, the sugar profile analyses detected forms of sugar that were inconsistent with what was listed on the food labels. This analysis revealed significant deviations in sugar amount and composition relative to disclosures from producers. In addition, the tendency for use of HFCS that is higher in fructose could be contributing to higher fructose consumption than would otherwise be assumed.Besides obesity and type 2 diabetes, there's a smaller epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We never had the latter when we just used sucrose.
If it was a calorie from fructose is the same as a calorie from glucose, then it wouldn't make a difference.My point wasn't that a calorie of fructose is the same as a calorie of glucose, but that the 55% of fructose in HCFS isn't significantly different than the 50% of fructose in table sugar.
Do you understand the results of your googling? You link that article in your post without comment. Does that mean you accept their findings suggestions as fact?
If it was one observational study alone, no. But that elevated blood sugar causes significant damage is well-established, and that the damage begins to occur at very modest elevations is also well-established.
This is a no brainer, Atkins and Fredericks talked about this 40+ years ago. We were made to eat meat and vegetables, fruit for a few months (summer) and that’s it.
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.