New data: High-fructose corn syrup no worse than sugar

[Sgent]

Source: USA Today

In 2004, three researchers published a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggesting the rise in obesity might be linked to the rise in consumption of high-fructose corn syrup. The paper led to a wave of research and a chorus of popular concern over the cheap, ubiquitous liquid sweetener.

The hypothesis was controversial and launched a backlash against the corn-based sweetener, which because of agricultural subsidies for corn in the USA was much cheaper than cane or beet sugar. It became nutritional dogma in some circles that sugar was healthy, and high-fructose corn syrup was not.

Now, the tide of research, if not public opinion, has shifted. This week, five papers published in a supplement to Clinical Nutrition find no special link between consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity. One paper was written by Barry Popkin, a co-author on the original 2004 paper.

"It doesn't appear that when you consume high-fructose corn syrup, you have any different total effect on appetite than if you consume any other sugar," he says.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-12-08-fructose-corn-syrup_N.htm

[Codeine]

1. Fucking THANK YOU!

It's just sugar, for god's sake. Friggin' hysteria drives me bananas.

[Javaman]

34. You are failing to understand something very basic regarding

HFCS. It's not a matter that this report claims it's not any worst than regular sugar (complete BS), it's the fact that it's in virtually everything you eat. That is part two of the issue the don't talk about.

[trotsky]

45. The lesson learned (which should have been obvious in the first place)

was that too much sweetener of ANY kind is bad for you. Doesn't appear that any one of them is worse than any other, just try not to overdo it.

[petronius]

76. Perhaps the headline should be "Eating 1/2 lb. of sugar each day no better than

eating 1/2 lb. of HFCS"

I think the real issue with these sweeteners is not the type of sweetener as much as it is the ease with which they can be added to pretty much every kind of processed food. It's a huge upswing in the number of empty useless calories people consume...

(Edited for awful spelling.)

[trotsky]

161. Absolutely.

Heck, your half pound estimate probably isn't that far off for some people, and that's downright scary.

[TankLV]

206. nor any BETTER - which is the point that should be driven home...

just like your first statement - too much sugar in ANY form is BAD...PERIOD.

[lebkuchen]

178. It's not in virtually everything Continental Europe eats

Europeans eat beet sugar, primarily, not the genetically modified crud that is in every food American over-produces. European food tastes a hell of a lot better, too.

This report reminds me of the one I read about thirty years ago that said that fruits, vegetables and whole grains were no more healthy for you than beef and bacon.

[Political Heretic]

184. Maybe we should look at the findings and methodology?

Or I guess we could just keep sticking with our "absolute certainty" about what we "know" and don't know and you know... fuck evidence or investigation of the strength or weaknesses of qualitative methods.

I haven't read the report, so I don't know if its accurate or BS.

[Political Heretic]

182. How can you call it "complete BS" without even reading the findings?

That sounds like dogmatism to me.

I'd be interested in seeing the study, myself.

[Javaman]

37. Also check out post #6. nt

[lebkuchen]

177. genetically modified

How lucky do you feel?

[aquart]

2. First, if you don't mind, I need to know who sponsored these studies.

After that, we can begin to discuss their conclusions.

[SpiralHawk]

13. Bingo - I'm with you aquart

Too many peculiar studies rolled out on these topics over the years.

Caveat Emptor...

[KittyWampus]

42. I am grateful someone else asked who sponsored these studies.

[No Elephants]

17. Ditto bingo. Especially suspect, IMO, is the switch by one of the researchers.

[Gman]

18. Me too

My cynicism is finely honed these days.

[LostinVA]

23. Yup, first thing I thought of, too

And who Popkin is working for now.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. EXACTLY!!!

[stlsaxman]

164. why- ConAgra, of course...

it's in their best interest.

if they didn't sponsor the studies- the subsidiaries of ConAgra buy a lot of ad space in USAToday.

[lebkuchen]

179. "smoke 'em by the pack"

Phillip Morris?

[Sparky 1]

190. Partly the corn industry did... link

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20081211/high-fructose-corn-syrups-bad-rap-unfair

From the article:

"The panel -- composed of several researchers who had received funding from the corn syrup industry and several who had not..."

Surprise!

[Dreamer Tatum]

196. If the methodology is sound and the article was peer-reviewed, who cares who funded research?

All that matters is that it was done correctly.

[Orrex]

221. Ladies and gentlemen, I present yet another case of

[santamargarita]

3. ...and George Bush was legitimately elected

~

[elleng]

5. No, he was not.

Election was stolen, in Ohio and elsewhere.

Logic is logic, wherever it is.

[santamargarita]

9. I forgot the sarcasm - yes, he stole 2 elections

:sarcasm:

[elleng]

10. 'They' stole

'He' not clever enough.'

[elleng]

4. So what?

If you drink large amounts of sugary soda, you're gonna gain weight; its LOGIC!

[Javaman]

35. If it was only soda.

virtually all processed food today contains some amount of HFCS. That is the problem.

[Javaman]

36. dupe nt

[Bake]

46. Really? I read on DU that it was genetic ...

:popcorn:

Bake

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. This bullshit report was brought to you by......

ASN Sustaining Members (also known as Pharmaceuticals, food companies making huge amounts of money from high fructose corn poison, and even a few Bush Crime Family connections)


The American Society for Nutrition is pleased to acknowledge the generous support from these organizations for educational programs of the Society.

Abbott Laboratories, Ross Products Division
The Almond Board of California
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, The Beef Checkoff
Cadbury Schweppes (owned by Bush Crime Family Carlyle Group)
Campbell Soup Company, Global Nutrition & Health
ConAgra Foods, Inc.
The Dannon Company
DSM Nutritional Products, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company- Poppy Bush was on their board for decades
General Mills
Gerber Products Company
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare - Do they make insulin? Bet they're selling a lot more in the last 30 years.
Kellogg Company
Kraft Foods(aka Phillip Morris tobacco. Always one to provide "unbiased" research)
Mars, Inc.
Martek Biosciences Corp.
McCormick Science Institute
McNeil Nutritionals
Mead Johnson Nutritionals
Monsanto Company- (Gee, you don't find a fucking conflict of interest HERE, do you??)
National Dairy Council
Nestle Nutrition Institute of Nestle USA
PepsiCo
Pharmanex-Oh Christ, make it stop already
POM Wonderful, LLC
The Procter & Gamble Company (HAIL SATAN!! :evilgrin: )
The Sugar Association, Inc.
Unilever Bestfoods
William Wrigley Jr. Company
Wyeth

The Sustaining Members are represented in the Society by a Sustaining Member Committee. The members of this standing committee help to provide visibility within ASN to matters of interest to industry by exchanging ideas and providing corporate financial support for the society's activities in education/training, scientific programs and professional outreach.

Become a Sustaining Member
Read the ASN Annual Report for 2007-2008, now available online.

In other words, bought and paid for by the corporate pigs who benefit the most from this SHIT being in the food supply. Yeah, some study. :eyes:

http://www.nutrition.org/about-asn/our-sustaining-members/

[Nihil]

21. What an amazing coincidence!

A new study emerges after four years that apparently contradicts the
previous one *and* it just happens to be sponsored by the very people
who benefit from the HFCS industry ...

It just goes to show how noble and unbiased the ASN is that it will even
risk a major impact to the member's own profits for the sake of getting
the "truth" out to the world at large ... they just struck lucky this time
that "teh scientists" backed up their profits ... oops ... "research" ...
yeah, "research" sounds nice doesn't it?

Thanks for posting this!
:thumbsup:

[shanti]

32. oh, this is major damage control

they noticed that some (vocal) people were on to the HFCS scam, hence this study and those insulting commercials that make people out to be tinfoilhatters to even question it! pisses me off!

[varelse]

25. It doesn't address the other study showing increased risk of kidney disease

to young women who consume more than one soft drink sweetened with HFCS per day.

I'll find that link when I have more than 30 seconds to post.

Meanwhile... I wish I could rec your post :)

[lovuian]

29. Well they are full of BS

this just shows you scientists if paid enough will say ANYTHING

[KittyWampus]

44. I love you for doing that Sebastian Doyle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Yet the report was published by a respected, peer-referred journal.

So I'd like you to support your claim that the report is "bullshit" with a reasonable, scientific argument.

As opposed to conspiracy theories.

[hunter]

70. Aaaaarrrrrrghhhhhh. Respected, peer-referred journals are full of crap science.

Publication in such a journal, even a very respectable one, is merely the match that lights the furnace in which the science will be tested.

Furthermore there are thousands of journals that exist only to meet the needs of "Publish or Perish" university and industry merit systems, and they are often easily influenced by money and politics.

This one smells sketchy before you even open it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. I asked for a reasoned rebuttal.

As opposed to conspiracy theories.

[hunter]

75. Too much experience with the pharmaceutical industry to be reasonable...

Most medical journals have been hideously corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.

To the pharmaceutical industry "science" is just another marketing tool.

But look at who the "The American Society for Nutrition" is in post #6 above...

The actual institution is ">3100 members" fully beholden to big industrial agriculture.

Look where they live:

AJCN Editorial Office
USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center
Department of Pediatrics
Baylor College of Medicine
1100 Bates Street
Houston, TX 77030-2600
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

USDA/ARS has become, in effect, the government branch of the U.S. agriculture industry. It doesn't really represent We the People anymore. There's a great big revolving door between the USDA and ag industry, and everyone else has to take a number and wait in line out back.

One of the interesting projects the USDA/ARS have got going these days is making human food out of distillers' dried grains (DDGs) left over from ethanol production.^* Previously this research has been about animal feeds used in industrial meat production, but I guess they saw there might be greater profits feeding this industrial by-product directly to humans. Somehow I'm sure The American Society for Nutrition will claim it's great stuff.

^*"Bread—and Bioenergy, Too? Yes!" http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/np/fnrb/fnrb0707.htm#grains

I can already envision a grim future where most of our food is made of HFCS and DDGs and the highest anyone aspires to is plunking down on the sofa after work to watch "ow my balls."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. Well thanks for admitting you're not reasonable.

Btw, you slurred the wrong journal, Einstein.

I love the ironic movie reference.

[hunter]

84. Nope, I got the right journal...

http://www.ajcn.org/current.shtml

Supplement: High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask:
Victor Fulgoni, III
High-fructose corn syrup: everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1715S.

John S White
Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1716S-1721S.

Kiyah J Duffey and Barry M Popkin
High-fructose corn syrup: is this what's for dinner?
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1722S-1732S.

Kimber L Stanhope and Peter J Havel
Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose, sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1733S-1737S.

Kathleen J Melanson, Theodore J Angelopoulos, Von Nguyen, Linda Zukley, Joshua Lowndes, and James M Rippe
High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 88: 1738S-1744S.

[aquart]

103. Honey, be happy. YOU eat the HFCS. Eat all you want.

I don't buy items with that ingredient but I have no desire to stop YOU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. That's fine.

But if you're going to call bullshit on a scientific report, you're going to have to explain yourself.

[bitchkitty]

217. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

128. Give us a reason to give this corporate 'study' a scintilla of cred, hooli

Those corporations have a collective track record that must cause any discerning human being to judge them guilty of whitewashing and propaganda until proven innocent.

The wise consumer will stick with clean food - not engorge on corporate mutant chemicalized food-facsimile supplement 'product'

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. It's been peer-reviewed by scientists.

Give me a good reason why it's not credible.

[Sebastian Doyle]

146. The tobacco industry used reports from "scientists" to say cigarettes weren't addictive

The religious reich has "scientists" who claim the earth is only 6000 years old. They also have "scientists" who claim homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Do you consider these "scientists" credible?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. You're going to have to try better than that.

Neither of those things are supported by peer-reviewed literature.

In fact, the scientific literature clearly demonstrates that tobacco is addictive, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. So if you want to disregard the scientific literature you don't like, simply because you don't like it, you wind up in the same group of people as the Creationists, and the tobacco execs.

[SoCalDem]

158. And "peers' often need money too..I'd be interested in how many "peers"

also serve on "advisory committees", "boards", and have connections to these "food-pharma corporations" via research "projects" they are paid to perform as well..:eyes:

[treestar]

162. We need to be careful here

Ever debated with right wingnusts on Global Warming? They say much the same sorts of things.

Scientists can legitimately disagree; that's the problem we have in our society today - we think it is so exact that it can come up with a black and white unarguable answer to any question touching on it. And in reality, there are areas where it can't.

[Dreamer Tatum]

198. You have no idea what you're blathering about

You REALLY don't.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does something very special: it opens the research up to scrutiny
by, oh, every researcher in the entire scientific world.

Universities subscribe to peer-reviewed journals, not "Bob's Review of Science I Like." They do this for a
reason: their faculty and students can then apply the scientific method to the hypotheses made in the
original article, and they can create a proper paper trail for future research. This research may well
refute the original research. If it didn't happen in a well-received journal, then it pretty much didn't
happen, as far as the scientific community is concerned. If you are so dead-solid certain that the study
is bullshit, then by all means, write a rebuttal that is up to the journal's editorial standards, and you'll
be a star.

I would rather wait until 2010 for the findings in this particular study to be refuted in a scientific manner
than take your dismissive word for something.

As for referees and journal editors being biased, I'm sure some are, but the peer review process is generally
double-blind, and referees are often screened for bias before being assigned certain kinds of work.

[hunter]

201. Um, yes, I really do know what I'm blathering about...

Science is not some kind of golden temple occupied by monks pure of heart. Often science is a street brawl.

Many journals, especially especially dead-tree medical journals, have a great deal of trouble rooting out research corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry. The good ones require authors to post their relationships with industry in great detail. Often the journals themselves are suspect because they derive substantial income from advertising revenue. The walls between marketing and editorial staff are always leakier than anyone wants to confess.

Medical practitioners and researchers are notoriously blind to their own bias, often a bias blatantly cultivated by the pharmaceutical industry. A friendly smile from a pharm rep gets medical researchers jumping through hoops, and these researchers will swear up and down and left and right that they are jumping of their own accord.

Big Industry sees published science as a branch of marketing, and they treat it as such. They know how to make scientists dance without ruffling their feathers, without raising their suspicions. They also know how to latch onto the bad apples, those scientists who will dance for money or prestige. Egos are easy things to manipulate, especially by industries that have the money and expertise to do it.

If the marketing department of a big industry can sell you their crap, they can also sell it to scientists.

One has to be skeptical about everything, even the science published in "well-received" journals like Nature, Science, or The New England Journal of Medicine. They've all served up some rotten dishes, and like all journals they suffer a built in selection bias in that they publish the stuff that seems to clear the waters, and not the stuff that muddies the waters.

[Dreamer Tatum]

203. Fame and fortune await you, then

Go forth and rebut. Hell, rebut the actual findings HERE.

[hunter]

204. Buy me the journal articles and pay me...

$25 buys 7 days access to AJCN. Because I like you, I'll charge $50 an hour, $200 minumum.

But there's no fame and fortune digging through stuff like this, and little reason to. Besides, it's mostly just PepsiCo buying time and mulling over the day it has to put "NO HFCS!" on the label, sort of like McDonalds and Trans Fats.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

233. Oh, so you haven't even read the articles.

Figures.

[hunter]

236. I don't watch Fox News either.

Even if I didn't recognize the stink right away I could've turned the channel as soon as I see the first author of this detestable "supplement:"

V Fulgoni III, Nutrition Impact, LL, 9725 D Drive North, Battle Creek, MI 49014

"Nutrition Impact is a small consulting firm that specializes in helping food & beverage companies develop and communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their products and services."

http://www.nutritionimpact.com/aboutus.html

Guess what? This supplement is crap. Crap is the very first ingredient on the label.

Here's the generic, addictive, soda formula:

Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS-55), carmal color, natural and artificial flavors, sodium benzoate, phosphoric acid and/or monosodium phosphate, and caffeine.

The HFCS-55/phosphate/caffeine triad is deliberate, and has little to do with "it tastes good." It's claimed that HFCS-55 tastes more like sucrose than either corn syrup or HFCS-42, but it really doesn't taste like sucrose at all; it's a bunch of subjective unscientific arm waving claiming it's "as sweet as sucrose" or that it has a "similar chemical composition to sucrose." It's bullshit.

This generic soda formulation is an artificial industrial fluid is carefully engineered to give you buzz and make you go back for more as the buzz wears off. Sodas using sucrose, or sodas without phosphorous just don't have the same bang. Leave the phosphorous out and you actually feel sort of shitty if you drink too much, as the phosphorous levels in your liver take a hit trying to hold onto all that fructose. Thats why the caffeine is there too.

The early formulations of Coke, etc., may have been evolutionary -- tweaking the formula here and there (coacaine!) to see what sells more -- but I'm certain the modern beverage and HFCS corporations have labs that would do the modern tobacco industry proud. They are not keeping the secret formula of Coke in the company safe, everyone knows that now, instead they are keeping studies that describe the biochemistry behind the demand for soft drinks, and those studies tell them they are not going to sell as much soda if they switch back to sugar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

240. If I wanted to criticize Fox News...

I'd cite facts, use examples, plenty of references, actual quotes, and so on.

Knee jerk appeals to emotion are the sort of shit Fox News does.

"The HFCS-55/phosphate/caffeine triad is deliberate, and has little to do with 'it tastes good.'"

The HFCS is there to sweeten the taste. The phosphoric acid is there for the bite. And the caffeine is there as a stimulant.

"It's claimed that HFCS-55 tastes more like sucrose than either corn syrup or HFCS-42, but it really doesn't taste like sucrose at all"

I bet you couldn't tell in a blind taste test.

"This generic soda formulation is an artificial industrial fluid is carefully engineered to give you buzz and make you go back for more as the buzz wears off."

Same thing applies to "energy drinks," coffee, tea, and so on.

"Sodas using sucrose, or sodas without phosphorous just don't have the same bang."

Neither of these substances is addictive like caffeine, if that's what the author is trying to argue.

"Leave the phosphorous out and you actually feel sort of shitty if you drink too much, as the phosphorous levels in your liver take a hit trying to hold onto all that fructose."

Scientifically illiterate mumbo jumbo. The amount of phosphoric acid is cola is trivial compared to the amount of phosphate already in your body. Nobody argues that apples are addictive because they contain a high amount of fructose.

"The early formulations of Coke, etc., may have been evolutionary -- tweaking the formula here and there (coacaine!) to see what sells more"

Naturally. You're not going to "tweak" a beverage so it sells less.

"They are not keeping the secret formula of Coke in the company safe, everyone knows that now, instead they are keeping studies that describe the biochemistry behind the demand for soft drinks, and those studies tell them they are not going to sell as much soda if they switch back to sugar."

You mean sucrose. HFCS is sugar.

[hunter]

241. Are "science-based claims" the same as science?

I don't think so.

But I do suspect that when can of HFCS-55 sugar water has got 60mg of phosphorous added to it that something might be going on there. I'm guessing it's just another one of those deliberately undefined "somethings" that makes a person crave cola day in and day out year after year...

http://www.beverage-digest.com/cgi-bin/hfcs.cgi

I was actually surpised by the number of soft drinks using ("tastes like sucrose") HFCS-42 rather than HFCS-55. Mostly it seems these are the brands where discerning long time customers would have been exceptionally upset by the greater change in taste switching from sucrose to HFCS-55 than to HFCS-42.

I really can taste the difference.

By the way, where do I purchase a small bottle of unflavored HFCS-55? (Maybe I want to put it on my pancakes or something...)

Personally I don't have much of a sweet tooth so I never developed a soda habit. I'd rather eat a can of anchovies than drink a can of soda. I do like fast food french fries and hamburgers, but drinking soda makes me feel ...blech... so the "value meal" with a 32 oz soda just isn't much of a value to me.

Anyways, thanks for your "science based claims." Hope you get around to the "hidden phosphorous" stuff I've posted in this thread. It's my own "science based claim" that phosphorous is not there "for the bite" or any other matter of taste. If phosphorous was banned from soft drinks tommorrow there are plenty of alternative flavoring agents with a similar "bite" that wouldn't contribute to the overload of phosphorous in the U.S. diet, and I'll bet few people could taste the difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

242. "Something might be going on there."

That's a "sapping our precious bodily fluids" level of paranoia.

"I really can taste the difference."

Oh, I doubt it.

"If phosphorous was banned from soft drinks tommorrow there are plenty of alternative flavoring agents with a similar "bite" that wouldn't contribute to the overload of phosphorous in the U.S. diet, and I'll bet few people could taste the difference."

Well then they'd use citric acid. But then there'd be all sorts of nuts complaining about that. Phosphate, btw. Or phosphoric acid. Not phosphorous. Those are different things.

[hunter]

243. What's your stake?

My stake is that I hate marketing crap wrapped in "science." It's especially annoying to me when marketeers bamboozle the scientifically semi-literate, those who have a high regard for their own common sense, who think they know enough science to spot a scientifically reasonable argument. These marketeers even bamboozle naive scientists because scientists as a group don't tend to be so good at recognizing deliberately deceptive claims and omissions. Scientists are not trained to look for those sorts of malfeasance.

The stuff of the original post is bullshit spewed out in conjunction with the "HFCS -- it ain't so bad" marketing campaign.

BTW, the scientists and dieticians who are trying to keep kidney disease patients alive do call it phosphorus. (And you missed my spelling mistake if you want to get picky...)

But not to worry, Pepsi & Coke are way ahead of us and ready to respond to increasing public scrutiny, even if they might not like it...

Meet Pepsi Raw:


http://ettf.net/archives/9728

For fast internet: http://www.pepsiraw.co.uk (may not be safe for work in U.S. or Iran.)

Wow! Drinking Pepsi Raw is like having sex!

Those HFCS ads on TV are the screams of the HFCS Corps... NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo............!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

244. You hate science, period.

You make stuff up, you've contradicted yourself several times in this thread, all to support your pre-concieved erroneous notins.

"These marketeers even bamboozle naive scientists because scientists as a group don't tend to be so good at recognizing deliberately deceptive claims and omissions. Scientists are not trained to look for those sorts of malfeasance."

Those stupid scientists.

:eyes:

[hunter]

246. James Randi talks quite a bit about the gullible scientist phenomena...

http://www.randi.org

He's done some glorious work in the field.

But frankly, hating science could explain my sometimes messy personal relationships with scientists. I mean why do they insist on asking me reasonable questions? WTF? Why can't they be like the Creation Scientists and simply run away when they see me coming? And dear God, why did all those stupid scientists ever let me pass their stupid university courses and write me letters of recommendation too?



The longer this thread stays up in LBN, the happier I shall be.

All yours with HFCS 90,

Hunter

[sandyd921]

215. But you have to admit that it doesn't help

if the research is sponsored by the very industry that can benefit from findings that support the products it is marketing whether the research is peer-reviewed or not. It certainly puts at least a taint on these findings.

[gtar100]

213. Did you say "conspiracy theories"? Oh no!! The gauntlet has been thrown.

The label of the decade to get people to shut up - "it's a conspiracy theory".

Do not question the food, do not question the water, the TV will provide a sound baseline for reasonableness. And dare not to question our sacred cows or we will snicker at you and make you the fool.

[SpiralHawk]

99. Ptoooey on these phoney corporate 'studies'

Republiconthink at work here, not science.

[fascisthunter]

124. "Corporate Pigs" is Right

good work

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. " ... The Sugar Association, Inc. ..."

There's all kinds of producer associations, or manufacturers, in there - including at least one that stand to gain from people believing that sucrose is not so bad as HFCS.

Cadbury Schweppes was a publicly traded British company, not 'owned by Carlyle' or any Bushes. This year, it demerged into Cadbury, a British public company, and Dr Pepper Snapple, an American public company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Pepper_Snapple_Group .

[Sebastian Doyle]

130. Cadbury's own website says otherwise

http://www.cadburyinvestors.com/cadbury_ir/press_releases/archivepr/1999press/1999-09-01/

More on the story here:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/carlyle.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. Your link is 9 years out of date

Carlyle site says they have exited ownership: http://www.carlyle.com/Portfolio/item7167.html

The companies I named are now 2 independently listed, publicly traded companies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/11/cadburyschweppesbusiness.fooddrinks

[Richard Steele]

210. Yup. Bought and paid for. nm

[Liberal Dose]

7. This still does not explain why nearly everything in the grocery store contains large amounts of

hfcs. It's in everything from bread to spinach dip.

[rucognizant]

11. It's because..........

their research has proved that hfcs CREATES a craving for more, MORE MORE! I saw a documentary on that several years ago! BIG difference from sucrose!
My own personal research on the subject? I was diagnosed with high blood sugar in August of theis year.
(pre-diabetic). ( being busy, & with a restrictive food budget, I was eating quick easy processed foods for about 10 years)
I am NOT prone to like sweets.........3 out of 4 times if offered a choice of salted nuts, pretzels, I will choose them over a candy bar, cake cookies......... ( The formative first 6 years of my life were during WWII with sugar rationing.)
SO, this fall, I endeavored to cut out sugar from my diet. A very WORK INTENSIVE decision! On a SS income that doesn't allow for spending on healthy soups, Annies; you want tomato soup? make your own because you can't buy a commercial brand without HFCS. I make my own bread....I switched to sparkling waters, rather than soda.........
Told the Schwann truck not to stop by anymore I wouldn't be buying their ice cream,,,,,,,,no other deserts, sweet treats.............cereal plain or with agave syrup ( blue cactus) or Orange blossom honey purchased from a small farm stand in Fla. that makes it's own, not COMMERCIALLY produced.
I had SERIOUS CRAVINGS, for more than a month! CRAVINGS, NOT just hunger!
IN MY 6 DECADES I don't have cravings! Sometimes hunger, different feel! My body is good at telling me what it needs..........like more broccoli or spinach. One year I wizzed through my property tax rebate, buying caesar salad ingredints for 2 months, ( Jan & Feb) ( And I made my own dressing!) I think I needed folic acid then........
These cravings were forearm gnawing, PANGS, starting at about 10:30 AM. OR 4:00 PM! Just like any other addiction!
So yeh! They lie!

[pipoman]

26. I believepeople develop the exact same craving for

refined sugar. I believe it has little to do with HFCS, its a sugar thing. I have seen people withdraw from using refined sugar in their coffee too.

Funny you mention tomato soup, it is one of the few homemade soups I do add a bit of sugar to. I use far less than store bought soups, but some to cut the acidity is needed IMHO. I also use some 50/50 cream/skim milk to assist in cutting acidity. Preprepared soups are some of the easiest foods to replicate with better, less sodium and sugar, homemade soups in about the same amount of time.

[B3Nut]

30. I avoid refined sugar in my coffee....

raw turbinado or demerara sugar tastes so much better, and you don't need to use as much to get a nice, rich flavor. I buy the organic stuff, it's fantastic.

Also organic maple syrup is vastly better than the HFCS-infested mass-produced dreck, and again you need much less. On a couple waffles (Kashi GoLean blueberry!) I use one tablespoon. Perfect. :)

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[seemunkee]

31. Try agave nectar

I was using turbinado for a long time and recently switched to agave.

[ipfilter]

47. agave nectar

That's what I call tequila. :)

[Javaman]

41. Try stevia. I use it all the time, I'm going to try and grow it myself this spring...

http://www.stevia.com/

[yellowdogintexas]

228. no sugar in the coffee here. I much prefer just coffee and cream. nt

[Ms. Toad]

112. Ding-ding-ding

It doesn't matter what form the sugar takes (and I would not limit it to refined sugar). Sugar creates cravings (at least in some people, and I am one of them). Fats do the same to me, although the impact is not as dramatic.

[shanti]

33. have you tried stevia?

it's a powdered, natural sweetener.

[KittyWampus]

48. Part of that is Insulin AND Leptin (hormone) Resistance. I had those "pangs" last year and it

was arm gnawing. That's the best way to describe it.

[Abq_Sarah]

235. All sugars cause cravings

People have reached the point where they can't distinguish between actual hunger and cravings. It's very difficult to find any food items that don't have added sugar because the manufacturers know the more sugar you eat, the more you want. That goes for all sugars not just HFCS. It's almost impossible to find deli lunch meats that don't have added sugars. It's completely absurd.

[elleng]

12. Less expensive

than 'regular' sugar, and manufacturers have their own taste-testers.

[cali]

16. I have no problem at all avoiding products with HFCS

It's really not that hard. And I don't even need to read labels most of the time- simply avoid processed foods and you can avoid HFCS and most other additives.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Because all of those things normally contain sugar.

And since HFCS is sugar, and it's cheaper than cane sugar, they use HFCS.

This isn't rocket science.

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. Two words: Corn subsidies

A few decades ago, the US government started paying farmers to grow corn. They grew corn, and the government found that it had a vast supply that needed to be used. The government found uses for it, and now corn is found in pretty much every single processed food. A few of the more common ingredients made entirely from corn are: starch, cornstarch, modified food starch, high fructose corn syrup, dextrin, maltodextrin, dextrose, fructose, invert sugar, monoglyserides, diglyserides, monosodium glutamate, xanthan gum and corn oil (which is a major part of most vegetable oil.)

Corn has become the primary source of non-petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, and can be refined to produce chemicals used to make plastics, synthetic textiles, and bio-fuels.

If you want a good background on corn, I recommend The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

[Lorien]

105. Corn is subsidized. They get paid by the government to use it.

one of Nixon's brilliant ideas.

[Grinchie]

8. What they don't tell you is how HFCS is Manufactured.

In fact, I challenge anyone on this site to post a link of a video that shows the process from start to finish.

You won't find it, because it's just as sick as the process used to make margarine, which is Just as Healthy as Butter, right?

The HFCS refineries are verboten to interested onlookers, claiming Trade Secret privilege, just like DIeBOLD and MONSANTO when they plant a crop of highly allergenic corn upwind from you.

Wrong.

[nerddem]

19. i heard they really mistreat the corn

bastards

[Javaman]

38. they use these giant machines called

threshers!! THRESHERS!!!

[nerddem]

50. the horror! even in small-scale operations

there's a considerable amount of violence. this is a graphic picture of corn mutilation, i know it's early in the day but these horrors have to be exposed. i had this sent to me by petc.

[Javaman]

63. My God! will the horrors never end? I have lost my appetite!

I will never look at corn on the cob the same way ever again.

[Dr. Strange]

67. That's why I only eat free range corn.

:patriot:

[Javaman]

78. That's the type of corn that only subsists on a diet of cows, right?

I've heard of that.

[Ms. Toad]

113. I recognize that process

Participated in it myself every year from about 1968-1978. Yum! Frozen corn all winter long!

[fla nocount]

14. Except for the cloying icky sticky aftertaste.

Sugar and water will turn back into sugar crystals after evaporation, HFCS turns to sludge.

[WriteDown]

40. What about caramel?

:shrug:

[fla nocount]

85. I was referring to the refreshing drinks with sugar added.

In the days before ConAgra, ADM and the Cuban embargo all cold drinks were sweetened so. Sugar begins to caramelize at 320 degrees F and can officially be called caramel at 338. There is no water in the product at this point, the molecular structure has broken down and has become plastic. At approx. 375 degrees it begins to burn, shortly thereafter, it ignites.

Alone among the sweeteners, HFCS is hydroscopic. It attracts moisture so it wants to be a syrup, needs to be a syrup, it will be a syrup. It will stick to the plate, the counter, your teeth, your stomach lining. Unlike other syrups and honey it might get thicker but will not crystallize. This bothers me in the same way as the month old loaf of Pepper Ridge Farm on top on the frig. that refuses to go stale or grow mold. It's just not natural.

Corn syrup is for pecan pie, eat it twice a year and you should be fine.

[hedgehog]

93. Ever wonder what they made pecan pie with 100 years ago?

[fla nocount]

100. Sugar syrup heated to 236 degrees or "thread stage"...

mixed half and half with turbinado or "brown sugar" or molasses, if poor, "black strap" molasses which was the last stage of the refining process and still containing sulfur dioxide. This basic recipe might also incorporate corn starch according to the amount of liquid sweetener and at least 3 egg yolks to make a custard. These were called "clear" pies and pecan was but one of them.

[conscious evolution]

15. What about its links to diabetes and ADD?

[zelta gaisma]

144. don't forget it's also a gate-way drug!!!

[conscious evolution]

145. To insulin and ritalin

[zelta gaisma]

149. wasn't talking so much about ...

the diabetes. But everything supposedly causes ADD and ADHD. My brother was "diagnosed" with ADHD , it turns out he really needed was a proverbial 2X4 up side the head. Stop making excuses , start taking the time to actually be at home to raise your kid instead of using "mother's helper". MY HOW WE'VE ADVANCED!!!

http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/caffeine/
The Opium of the Children: Domestic Opium and Infant Drugging in Early Victorian England. In it she details many pharmaceutical business practices in Britain's early eighteenth century, including the various names given to opium solutions designed for household use:

Mother's Helper
Infant's Quietness
Atkinson's Preservative
Dalby's Carminative<8>
Soothing Syrup
Godfrey's Cordial

And various corruptions of the above names. As one might surmise, these concoctions of opium were expressly designed for the purpose of quieting unruly children. The England of the Industrial Revolution was not a particularly pleasant place to live and work in, especially for the lower classes. Eighteen-hour workdays were not uncommon. Contraception was virtually unknown. The accidental bearing of a child would prove grossly inconvenient to its mother; so would the extra cost in feeding and lost sleep due to the infant's cries.

[Orsino]

199. Fuck yeah. They dilute that stuff--deliberately--with dihydrogen monoxide. n/t

[depakid]

20. The empire strikes back

Responsible science be damned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x173989

Multiple peer reviewed sources have shown that adverse health outcomes are associated with consumption of high frustose corn syrup- and have also identified and outlined clinical pathways as to why these assocations come about.

These aren't conspiracy theories- though the proliferation of HFCS is rather easily understood through recourse to plain old fashioned shortsightedness, corrupt American politics and greed.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. So the HFC Indsutry sez: HFC is yummmy!

What a suprise! I notice they don't mention the rise in diabetes that came with the introduction of HFC. And that is the biggest issue in my book with this industrial by prodcut of an 'ingredient'.
They also neglegct to mention the vulgar taste, the gummy properties it gives to baked goods, the odd ways it makes syrups and sauces bead on the plate....no thanks. We dont eat any of it.
It is I think of interest that when Coca Cola switched to HFC, some countries rejected it on the basis of taste alone. Mexico took one sip and said, "no mas por favor" so Coke makes cane sugar Cokes in Mexico, just like the used to here. It tastes different, it has different properties, and that is fully aside from anything that demands 'science' give us answers. It tastes like shit. No mas.
And if anyone really has to drink a Coke, like I like to do once or twice a year with a plate of enchiladas, get yourself a Coke that says 'Hencho en Mexico' and avoid the poison.

[KittyWampus]

49. they are also advertising on tv.

[pipoman]

24. The influx of HFCS into the food chain

corresponded with the influx of convenience foods. HFCS is less expensive than refined sugar. Neither are too healthy for you. If HFCS was removed from the food chain tomorrow, product manufacturers would replace it with refined sugar to maintain consistency of their products. The products would not be one bit healthier than they are now. The US would still suffer from obesity issues and diabetes. The cost of those products would go up and maybe some people would not buy them because of that, other than that no change. The problem with American nutrition isn't HFCS, it is Americas sweet tooth and propensity to buy preprepared 'convenience' food.

I cook professionally every day. I use very few preprepared products. We make nearly everything we serve from scratch including salad dressings, soups, casseroles, etc. We use very little sugar in our savory foods and nobody cares, the food is delicious. It really takes only marginally longer to make things from scratch than to use many of the preprepared products. I teach people to make delicious foods from scratch quickly in workshops. Many have reported back that their diabetes has disappeared and their cholesterol levels have dropped after attending.

People who are truly interested in reducing their HFCS intake can learn how to do just that in very little time and enjoy their food more at the same time.

[Kali]

55. Bingo

Stay off of "convenience" foods. You will pay with your health later. How convenient is that?

Stay on the outside of the store aisles. Fresh fruit, veggies; larger, cheaper, intact cuts of meat, real milk, butter, cheese. If the freezer section is in the middle pass through there for frozen fruits/veggies - sometimes they are fresher than the "fresh".

After you learn to eat a little better start exploring locally produced, seasonal food - better yet try growing your own.

[crikkett]

27. HFCS makes my heart pound and sugar doesn't.

why?

[mainegreen]

53. HFCS give me heartburn.

Yuk.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Well, it's either psychosomatic.

Or you're just making it up.

Probably the latter.

[Codeine]

79. It's your imagination.

The only difference between regular white sugar and corn syrup is that the latter has slightly more fructose and slightly less glucose that the former. That's it. You've been conned.

[Lorien]

104. Oh really? It's not until after I've eaten something and nearly pass out that I

later find out that it had HFCS in it. I'm severely hypoglycemic and can eat small amounts of sugar, but NO HFCS because it drenches my body in sweat and I become extremely light headed. Did the exact same thing to my grandmother, too-although she DID faint from the stuff!

[yellowdogintexas]

227. chemical differences in fructose vs glucose most likely. I get the sweats and

shakes if I eat balogna, and the instant 'Cup-a-Soup' tomato soup made me so ravenous I could eat the desk without salt.

a sensitivity to preservatives, at a minimum.

[Lorien]

102. Same here. n/t

[420inTN]

134. Perhaps you are allergic to HFCS

It's quite possible that you are allergic to HFCS (but not refined sugar). While they are similar, they are molecularly different. It's possible that something about your body chemistry reacts poorly with HFCS. However, that doesn't mean that HFCS is equally bad for everyone (or anyone) else.

A former boss of mine will die if eats one small shrimp. Me, I can't eat enough of them. Or crabmeat, lobsters, or crawfish.

I know two people who are allergic to sulfur. My dad can't take any sulfate based medicine, otherwise he's fine. Another friend will have an allergic reaction if someone just stikes a match in the same room as her.

[Lorien]

139. Nope. It's a classic hypoglycemic response n/t.

[420inTN]

219. Must not be that classic.

A friend and co-worker of mine is hypoglycemic and doesn't see any difference between glucose and fructose. He guessed that you have a really severe case of hypoglycemia.

[Orsino]

200. It's that sexy acronym.

But you were serious?

[Pab Sungenis]

28. Never mind the health effects or lack of same.

Sugar TASTES better than HFCS! I consider that to make HFCS "worse."

[WriteDown]

43. I agree....

I also like honey better.

[Tesha]

163. But honey is just "high fructose flower syrup"

refined by bees instead of ADM!

Tesha

[WriteDown]

165. Haha!!!

Too funny :).

[Codeine]

80. On that we agree.

Coke made with sugar beats the hell outta Coke made with corn sweetener, hands down. All the hysteria is bullshit, however.

[gravity]

39. No shit

They are the same molecules that get absorbed into your body.

[KurtNYC]

51. So no difference in "effect on appetite" -- was that ever even the question?

btw, there are lots of studies now that look at the effect on appetite of eating artificial sweetners and in those studies artificial sweetners increase your appetite for real sugars (sucrose, fructose, etc.)

[hedgehog]

52. As with a public opinion poll, sometimes you can determine the answer

to a scientific study ahead of time by how you frame the question.


For example, the proper question here is not what is the total effect on appetite, but is there a difference in how the body metabolizes and uses the calories in HFCS? Does HFCS put more strain on the liver, those it change insulin levels, are calories from HFCS preferentially stored as fat, etc.?

[gravity]

54. Scientific studies aren't biased

You can't compare them to them to a public opinion poll.

[hedgehog]

60. Depending on how I base the question, I think I could "prove" just about anything I want to.

For example, last night on NBC Nightly News there was a story about a report "proving" that taking Vitamin B doesn't prevent prostate cancer. They compared a group taking Vitamin B to a group taking a placebo and saw no difference. Proof positive that Vitamin B doesn't prevent prostate cancer, right?

But, what if the dose of Vitamin B given in the study was a fraction of the effective dose, that is, what if both the test group and the control group were deficient in Vitamin B levels?

All the study proved is that the dose of Vitamin B given in the study has no effect on rate of prostate cancer. It proved nothing about the possible effect of higher doses of Vitamin B.


For years, the RDA for Vitamin D was set at 400IU. Currently, researchers studying diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and depression are all independently coming up with data suggesting that the RDA should be much higher. A study of the effect of Vitamin D at a daily dose of 400IU would have shown no connection to Seasonal Affective Disorder. (SAD). It was a study using a higher dose that found a possible connection.

http://www.psychiatry.co.uk/dvit.htm

[gravity]

69. Don't you think scientists look at these problems

These test get repeated over many times and are reviewed by experts in the field. If there are any bad studies, they will get weeded out, like in your example you gave.

It doesn't matter how you ask the question. What matters is the quality of your data and the tests performed.

[sandyd921]

216. The question you ask does matter!

You can ask the question in a million different ways and get a million different answers! The question or hypothesis is the critical starting point of all research and the question will dictate the particular measures or tests that are used. How you interpret the findings also matters. Many different spins can be put on any set of findings.

People need to be better informed about research and the scientific method. It's essential to the development of critical thinking abilities.

[arikara]

220. They do that all the time

when they want to "prove" that a natural remedy isn't effective but that one of their snake oil magic pills are the answer. Then they send out a pre-prepared press release in the form of a news item to the networks. These press releases even have slots for the local newscaster to make comments. It all meant to look like its real news instead of what it really is... advanced hucksterism. The networks like it because it saves them time and money and they don't have to do any real investigative reporting on anything.

[aquart]

107. Are you 12?

Seriously, people question the "bias" of "scientific studies" all the time. Do you really buy anything that claims to be "scientific"? Good grief.

Here's a shocker: science is for sale like everything else.

[gravity]

123. I trust science above any other sources

It could be wrong, but it has a helluva a lot more credible than the Internet. From my experience, the ones who make claims that scientific studies are biased have an agenda on their own and will never change their position based on facts.

If you think it has a biased, then come up with your own study to prove it wrong and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. If there are any biases, it will eventually get weeded out by other scientists.

[420inTN]

138. Re: "I trust science."

trusting science is fine, but that doesn't mean that you should trust every scientist or study. scientists are still human beings and susceptible to all human frailties, including pride, greed, ego, etc.

[gravity]

140. I trust science, not an individual scientists

There are errors that are both intentional and unintentional, but as a whole science is pretty damn robust and I trust the consensus over any other opinions because it is the best information we have.

There were five studies showing that there weren't any health effects from HFCS compared to sucrose, so I am pretty confident on this one.

[knitter4democracy]

127. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, they are.

If they weren't, then why does JAMA and NEJM make everyone involved in a study reveal all of their funding sources and possible biases?

[gravity]

137. To help clear up any conflicts of interest

If someone was reviewing the study, they might give it less benefit of the doubt and be more careful in making sure the proper procedures were followed, but it doesn't mean that the study itself any less legitimate. Disclosing sources is a precaution to prevent any biases in the system, which makes it more robust.

I hear these types of arguments from global warming denies, saying that the scientists have biases. It is a ad hominem argument, and you should really attack the message instead of the messenger.

[pipoman]

142. I agree with you and with 420 on this one

Usually the only guidance we have is current scientific theory which is all too often framed as irrefutable fact. This irrefutable scientific fact changes constantly. How much common scientific fact has later been found to be false? It happens all the time and has for centuries. From the Earth being flat to the moon being made of green cheese, from the destructive nature of butter and positive effect of margarine to the danger of eating eggs. I like to pay attention to these scientific trends but rarely change my habits based solely on them. Just my $.02

[knitter4democracy]

166. Those conflicts of interest, however, can reveal bias.

Let's say that the one funding the study is ConAgra and Monstanto (haven't read the whole thing, so I don't know). They would have massive interest in promoting the "healthy" aspects of their product, no? Would they pull the funding if the study said the opposite of what they want? It's been done before. So, isn't there a conflict of interest in that case that could shade the results a tad?

Just because something's peer reviewed doesn't mean it's solid. It just means that those reviewing it thought it was okay. I remember reading education "studies" in college from peer-reviewed educational journals that were crap, and I've seen letters to NEJM that questioned a study a hell of a lot better than the reviewers obviously did.

The problem isn't in the studies as much as it is in how they're reported. Most Americans don't question anything scientific and so just believe whatever they read. If there's a study proving it, it must be true, is how they think. They don't realize that science is a process of proving and disproving and proving and disproving back and forth, over and over again until something seems fairly solid.

[gravity]

191. Most Americans believe what they want to believe

If the study goes against their beliefs, they say it must have been biased. If it supports their beliefs, they say the science supports them.

[knitter4democracy]

195. That's true, too.

Very, very true.

[420inTN]

136. Scientific studies CAN BE biased

It's called "Experimenter's bias": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter%27s_bias

Scientific studies can be poorly designed, poorly recorded, poorly implemented, and poorly analyzed.

Just as anything created by man, it can be tainted. That's why peer-reviewed journals exist, to review the design, data, and methods used. However, just because a study is peer-reviewed, doesn't mean that it is a good or valid study. It just means that no one caught the flaws, or the flaws were ignored. That's why there are so many conflicting studies (i.e. HFCS, innoculations/autism, cell phones/brain tumors, heart disease/butter/hydrogenated oils).

And then, some studies/experiments are just shams (korean cloning experiments, big tobacco health studies, etc.)

[Kali]

56. "No worse"

That should give an indication of the reality. "No worse" implies something is already bad.

Lay off the processed crap and enjoy a little real sweetness in moderation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Well duh.

It's fructose and glucose.

It is sugar.

Man, there are a lot of stupid people who really make fools of themselves on this issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

77. Why two names, then?

They're not the same molecule, are they?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. No, they're two different molecules.

Both of which are sugars.

Table sugar, btw, is sucrose which, when eaten, breaks down into fructose and glucose.

[FiveGoodMen]

94. So, if they're different how do we know their effect on the body is the same?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. By studying the effects of the molecules on the body.

Duh.

[FiveGoodMen]

97. Stop being condescending.

Even if -- and I stress IF -- you know enough biology to make the claim that their effects are the same, you add nothing to the conversation by insulting those who are not bio researchers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Stop playing dumb.

Fructose is not artificial. It's nothing new.

Honey has the same proportion fructose:glucose as HFCS, and people have been eating it for 10,000 years. Which is about twice as long as they've been eating sugarcane.

[hunter]

116. They are not the same.

Glucose is the common sugar currency of the human body, and the metabolic pathways are very tightly regulated. Fructose metabolism occurs by different pathways that are not as tightly regulated. Mostly fructose gets converted by the liver into fatty acids which are dumped into the blood as very low density lipoproteins. This process undoubtedly influences many other metabolic processes in the liver in ways that have yet to be discerned.

Glucose is used by the cells of your body directly, or stored away as energy reserves of glycogen or fat in a process controlled by the pancreas using insulin as a signal. Fructose levels do not directly influence this system. Most cells cannot process fructose for energy, the major exception is spermatozoa -- it fuels their motors.

Starches and Sucrose are broken down by yet another metabolic process, and it's not at all accurate to say that sucrose is simply fructose + glucose in terms of its metabolism.

[FiveGoodMen]

118. Thank you.

That's the kind of info I was looking for.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Uh, hunter....

That metabolic pathway that tightly regulates glucose is the same pathway that tightly regulates fructose.

The body regularly converts glucose to fructose and vice versa.

[hunter]

148. That's not the way it works.

It's not one pathway. Each individual cell has the enzyme kit to process fructose or glucose, but glucose is the preferred sugar. If your blood glucose falls below a certain level you are dead no matter there is plenty of fructose around. Very ancient and very well conserved fructose-glucose transformations that are useful to a yeast cell are not so useful to you.

I hunted around for a good internet link, but I didn't find one right away, so I'll fly in here blind by the seat of my pants:

When you've got your small intestine full of glucose, fructose, and sucrose, they are transported into the blood by three different cellular systems. From there they go to the liver.

Glucose is our basic blood sugar currency and it sails right on through unchanged. As blood glucose levels rise the pancreas signals the body (mostly the liver) to start making glycogen and fat using this glucose, which brings blood glucose levels back down. If blood glucose is later depleted the pancreas signals the liver to turn its stores of glycogen back into glucose. If the liver doesn't have enough glycogen stashed away our bodies first goes after the fat, and then if it runs out of fat it starts burning the body's furniture, tearing down muscle proteins, etc.

The sucrose, other complex sugars, and a whole mess of starchy things that have been broken apart in the small intestine are processed in other metabolic pathways. Sucrose gets thrown into the processing bin with the starches, the mashed potato stuff, etc., and comes out as glucose, glycogen, and/or fats.

Fructose is a tough little sugar molecule that has to be dealt with separately. Mostly it is converted into fatty acids that end up as very low density lipoproteins in the blood which do eventually end up as blood glucose, yes, but in a roundabout way. These metabolic processes that convert fructose to fat also interfere with other processes in the liver utilizing phosphorous. In people lacking certain enzymes this disruption is deadly; fructose in their diet accelerates the destruction of their livers and kidneys.

Even though cells in our body do convert glucose to fructose and vice versa (giving our little spermatozoa an energy rich fluid to swim in, for example...) it's not one of the major metabolic nutritional pathways in our evolutionary history.

Hmmmmm. Now I'm wondering about humming birds. What's the sugar composition of flower nectar? But I've not got the heart to cut livers out of humming birds for research, so maybe I don't want to know.

[Hanse]

153. Actually, yes, it is.

If the body needs glucose, and has a supply of fructose, it can convert fructose into glucose.

Now normally it doesn't need to, and glucose and fructose play the same roles. Glycogen synthesis, fatty acid synthesis, and glycolysis. Yes, fructose can be used to make fatty acids. So can glucose. Yes, glucose is used to make glycogen. So can fructose. In fact, fructose is more efficient at making glycogen, it's further along the pathway.

Sucrose doesn't get thrown into the "same storage bin as starches," whatever that means. As soon as you eat sucrose it's immediately hydrolyzed to glucose and sucrose by glycoside hydrolases in saliva, undergoes further acid hydrolysis in the stomach, and any left gets hydrolyzed by glycoside hydrolases and sucrase in the intestines. The resulting fructose and glucose get absorbed into the blood stream in the usual manner. Consuming a sucrose solution has the same net result for your bloodstream as consuming a solution of fructose and glucose.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need a better source.

Nectar varies from plant to plant. But it's typically mostly fructose.

[hunter]

154. Go for it.

Show me the pathways.

fructose <-- ? --> glucose most especially in someone who is not a) starving or b) eating a diet high in fructose but absurdly low in glucose.

I was thinking I had a pretty clear picture of it in my head, even if I oversimplified my description.

The body is amazingly adaptable to unusual diets, but that's not the normal state of things. A diet high in fructose causes some very significant changes in liver metabolism. All this is complicated by the fact that the intestines are a facilitated and/or active transport system capable of rejecting fructose absorbtion.

Short story: In someone who has adequate glycogen reserves (watching television, drinking second or third soda...) glucose passes through the liver and blood levels are precisely controlled by insulin, etc.. Excess glucose gets turned into fat in the liver and other places such as adipose tissue. Fructose on the other hand is immediately trapped in the liver and processed in more limited ways and at the expense of other normal metabolic processes. Mostly it is converted into very low density lipoproteins and released into the blood.

The processing of sucrose and starches is not so clear as you suppose because it is an active adaptable system. The "net result" of drinking a sucrose solution is not the same as drinking a solution of fructose and glucose for the simple reason that enzymes and the various molecular transport systems in the process have their own systems of regulation.

I did, I think, find a decent Biochemistry page: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org

Fructose metabolism here: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/non-glucose-sugar-metabolism.html

But man do I hate researching nutrition on the internet. If in general 95% of the internet is total crap, it's closer to 99.9% total crap for anything to do with nutrition.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

183. Fructose --> F6P --> G6P --> glucose

Did you read your own links? You should have been able to piece that together yourself.

"The body is amazingly adaptable to unusual diets, but that's not the normal state of things. A diet high in fructose causes some very significant changes in liver metabolism."

What makes you think a diet high in fructose is an unusual diet?

"If in general 95% of the internet is total crap, it's closer to 99.9% total crap for anything to do with nutrition."

This should give you pause before posting more biochemistry that you don't understand.

[hunter]

194. Hello? This is one place where fructose gets nasty...

If you are a supporter of some kind of "fructose is just a sugar" theory it's not a place you want to go.

I grabbed this from a Creative Commons paper, clearly biased against HFCSs, but I liked the way they put it:

Of key importance is the ability of fructose to by-pass the main regulatory step of glycolysis, the conversion of glucose-6-phosphate to fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, controlled by phosphofructokinase. Thus, while glucose metabolism is negatively regulated by phosphofructokinase, fructose can continuously enter the glycolytic pathway. Therefore, fructose can uncontrollably produce glucose, glycogen, lactate, and pyruvate, providing both the glycerol and acyl portions of acyl-glycerol molecules. These particular substrates, and the resultant excess energy flux due to unregulated fructose metabolism, will promote the over-production of TG.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5

(my emphasis on uncontroallaby)

My own training in Biology is mostly in the fields of Evolution and Ecology. It's pretty clear to me that human biology deals with fructose as a windfall situation -- our bodies grab it and turn it into fat. But high levels of dietary fructose are also a disruptive thing to ordinary day-to-day metabolism. If there is too much fructose in our diet some processes become abnormal. The population of cell surface proteins changes. Enzyme levels are readjusted. Regulatory systems shift.

Our metabolism is not adapted to eating high levels of fructose every day, year after year. If we were so adapted the mechanisms for processing fructose would be much more sophisticated.

That's why I made my quip about humming birds...

[Sebastian Doyle]

174. Not to mention the fact

that hummingbird livers would be really really tiny, and probably tough to get a decent sample from.

[TankLV]

208. YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG!!!

Fructose and Glucose are EQUAL in their effects on the body. They're SUGARS. They're EQUAL as far a Diabetes is concerned...

STOP SPEWING LIES ABOUT NOTHING YOU EVIDENTLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!

Bornagain is RIGHT!

Ask any dietician...

[hunter]

211. Ah, I wondered where this was coming from...

"EQUAL as far a Diabetes is concerned..." Okay. But we're not talking about the diet of someone who has diabetes.

We're talking about the effects of HFCS vs. Sucrose on the general population, especially as it relates to rates of obesiety, type II diabetes, heart disease, and other health problems.

There's no good reason to give HFCS a free pass based upon the unsubstantiated dogma that "They're SUGARS. They're EQUAL."

It's very similar to the situation with trans fats. The consensus now is trans fats were a bad idea.

Fats are fats but some appear to be worse than others.

Ask any dietician...

[TankLV]

226. Sugar is SUGAR and reacts with the body THE SAME WAY!

some faster than others...

which makes you WRONG!!!

ask any dietician...

[hunter]

229. In chemistry rates are important. Dieticians base their practice on science.

Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories

Consume too much of them and the all react with the body the same way: they make you fat!

Roughly speaking, yeah "sugar is sugar." If you are controlling your calorie intake and limiting your sugar intake then cutting back on HFCS or sucrose has much the same gross effect.

But that's not what we are talking about here. The body does not handle frutcose the same as it does other sugars. That is fact. And with a diet high in fructose there are some subtle and not so subtle changes in metabolism. Are these changes good, bad, neutral??? That's the question.

There's a reason they go to great legnths to turn ordinary corn syrup into HFCS and it probably doesn't have a lot to do with taste so much as it does the amount of soda they sell. More HFCSs = more health problems.

[TankLV]

207. They're all SUGARS, and hence, too much of ALL of 'em is BAD...

it doesn't matter what kind of molecules they are - they have the SAME EFFECT on people and lead to the SAME EFFECT on causing greater increases in developing diabetes...ask any diabetes specialist...

even corn, peas, and beans contain high levels of sugars and a person should limit THOSE foods too...

Glucose AND fructose effect the body's metabolism THE SAME WAY!!!

My original doctor said - oh go ahead - eat as much fruits as you want when I was trying to lessen the impact of Type II Diabetes - and HE WAS SOOO FUCKING WRONG!!!

ALL sugars have to be considered THE SAME WAY - and too much of ANY of 'em is BAD...and HAVE THE SAME EFFECT!

Stop spreading LIES!!!

[hunter]

238. Just for fun I add this...

Hidden phosphorus in popular beverages: Part 1
Lisa Murphy-Gutekunst
Journal of Renal Nutrition - April 2005 (Vol. 15, Issue 2, Pages e1-e6, DOI: 10.1053/j.jrn.2004.12.001) link

Ask any dietician who works with kidney patients about hidden phosphorus.

This "ALL sugars have to be considered THE SAME WAY" promotion by the high fructose corn syrup and soft drink industry is bullshit.

The best selling soft drink formulations are generally HFCS/caffeine/phosphorus

But my favorite non-caffeine formulation is Hawaiian Punch:

WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP AND 2% OR LESS OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: CONCENTRATED JUICES (PINEAPPLE, ORANGE, PASSIONFRUIT, APPLE), PUREES (APRICOT, PAPAYA, GUAVA), CITRIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, PECTIN, GUM ACACIA, GUM GHATTI, GLYCEROL ESTER OF WOOD ROSIN, SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE, RED #40, BLUE #1, SODIUM BENZOATE AND POTASSIUM SORBATE (PRESERVATIVES) AND ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C).

A can of that has got a whopping 173 mg phosphorus, about 25% of the RDA for phosphorus.

[librechik]

64. dental caries not mentioned

I think syrups are a greater hazard for teeth than sugar, becasue they cling harder to tooth surfaces.
Need more info about that though. The test was just about heart disease and obesity.

[Strathos]

65. Why not just real sugar then?

Why have it processed any more than it is? Just real sugar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. 1. "real" sugar is also processed.

2. Cane sugar has to be imported from tropical places, while corn can be grown locally. And the sugarcane industry makes the corn industry look like saints.

[Ms. Toad]

Or made from beets.

Also processed. Had to drive by a nasty smelly plant to get to town when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s.

[Codeine]

83. It's not any more processed than regular sugar.

It's advantage is that it's sourced from a locally-grown, government-subsidized plant. Sugar cane is a tropical crop, and the cane has to be heavily processed to get your regular sugar.

And the term "real sugar" is misleading, really. These are all "sugars," i.e. monosaccharides -- they are just being sourced differently. One is from corn and the other from sugar cane or from beets, but the actual chemical difference is quite minor, just a function of the fructose/glucose ratio.

[Sebastian Doyle]

86. Like hell it isn't.

The main problem with HFCP is that it is so refined that there is nothing left for the body to metabolize, which is why it goes directly into the bloodstream (which messes up the blood sugar and insulin levels) and is deposited in fat cells. This is precisely why there has been such an increase in diabetes and obesity since HFCP was introduced into the US food supply, and why this is NOT the case in the rest of the world where cane or beet sugar are still used.

Cane or beet sugar is also refined, but considerably less than HFCP, so it's broken down by the body before it enters the bloodstream. Still not good for you in excess, obviously. But far less likely to have adverse effects in moderation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. If it's not metabolised, why would it cause diabetes?

:crazy:

"Cane or beet sugar is also refined, but considerably less than HFCP, so it's broken down by the body before it enters the bloodstream."

Do you know what cane sugar is broken down into before it enters the bloodstream?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

156. Geeze..

What's up with all the woo-woo, scientific illiteracy on this website? Some people here are just like the Freepers who deny evolution.

[Codeine]

114. Hogwash. Complete nonsense.

Sugars are sugars. It's all glucose and fructose in these sweeteners, though the ratios are a tiny bit different. They are all broken down by the body -- the notion that "there is nothing left for the body to metabolize" is completely insane.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

141. Yes, that must be it.

I don't buy into your hysteria so I must be a corporate shill.

Alerted, btw.

[Psephos]

150. "I know a corporate shill when I see one."

And I know someone who is ignorant of metabolic physiology when I see one.

The way you've misused even the buzzwords, let alone the underlying concepts, suggests you've had little formal education in biology, physiology, or chemistry. I wouldn't have commented if you hadn't tried to browbeat others whose education wasn't as nonscientific as yours.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. Your post makes no sense whatsoever

HFCS is about 55% fructose, 42% glucose; table sugar is 50% of each (from the article in the OP). Table sugar is highly refined (you'll note there is no room in those figures for anything else, whereas there is a little in HFCS - in other words, white sugar is more highly 'refined' than HFCS). By the time both HFCS and sugar are absorbed through the gut wall, both are glucose and fructose in solution in the gut. Both fructose and glucose are metabolised to obtain energy. The difference between HFCS and sugar is the balance of the 2 monosaccharides; any theory has to work with that, not meaningless hand-waving about sugar not being heavily refined, or there being 'nothing to metabolize' in HFCS.

Diabetes and obesity rates have soared elsewhere too, eg in the UK, where HFCS is rare - the corn industry is small, while the sugar beet one is large.

[nuxvomica]

171. Sucrose, what we usually mean by "real sugar", is a disaccharide

As such, it is composed of two monosaccharides, fructose and glucose bonded together. HFCS is a mixture of those two monosaccharides, not a compound of them, so it is more like bee honey, which is another mixture of those two monosaccharides along with some other sugars.

[Tesha]

187. FYI: Sucrose is a disaccharide, hence its subsequent breakdown into two monosaccharides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

[ElsewheresDaughter]

68. High fructose corn syrup is a waste byproduct of the processing of ethanol industry

[BuddhaGirl]

96. yuck

and where do they dump all that shit? Into the American public. Pathetic.

[lebkuchen]

180. It's a genetic modification

I'd prefer to eat food the way nature produced it. However, in the U.S., since everything on supermarket shelves has high fructose corn syrup, you don't have a lot of choice unless you plan to shop exclusively in the produce section, which is where you'll find me in any commissary.

[cosmicdot]

73. I found this label comparison interesting ...

fwiw

label ingredients are listed in descending order, from greatest to least amount ...

Smucker's Strawberry Preserves:

strawberries, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, sugar, fruit pectin, citric acid

Bonne Maman Strawberry Preserves:

strawberries, sugar cane sugar, concentrated lemon juice, fruit pectin

[JonQ]

74. Yeah it must be the corn syrup

after all including more HFCS is literally the only change in the american lifestyle that could possibly be responsible for an increase in obesity.

It's not like we have experienced rapidly declining amounts of physical exercise, especially for children, an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, increasing meal portions and an obsession with somehow losing weight, while making no meaningful changes in our habits.

Nope. Must be corn syrup.

[Sebastian Doyle]

88. But those other factors exist in other countries as well

They have video games, 500 channel digital TV and broadband internet in Europe, Japan, and other countries just like they do here. But they don't have high fructose corn poison. And they don't have the spike in obesity and diabetes.

[Codeine]

115. Actually they do.

Obesity rates in countries that use lots of sugar but don't use HFCS are also experiencing increases in obesity. Western Europe is pudging up quite nicely of late.

[JonQ]

125. Came here to say exactly that

also the situations between here and europe aren't exactly the same with the exception of HFCS. Europeans tend to walk more in their day to day lives, get more vacation time, and have considerably fewer all you can eat buffets, fast food restaurants, and super sized meals than we do. They're starting to catch up though, in all those factors and obesity. Corn syrup has the same effects as sugar.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Change in diabetes rates in Europe from 1980 to 2005:

Armenia: 0.45% -> 1.10%
Bosnia: 0.44% -> 1.68%
Czech Rep: 3.07% -> 7.22%
Finland: 1.77% -> 3.26%

etc. Source: http://www.heartstats.org/atozpage.asp?id=1912

Diabetes and obesity are growing all over the world.

[BuddhaGirl]

82. it's still garbage

always was and always will be. I never touch the stuff - it hits your blood stream faster - not good.

I use agave nectar - it's natural - and maple syrup.

Don't believe anything the corn industry tells you :-(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. lulz

Agave syrup- 92% fructose, 8% glucose

HFCS- 55% fructose, 45% glucose

[Occulus]

106. Link? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. here

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/463/463_0201ap.html

[Occulus]

133. Now can you show me a site WITHOUT extreme bias toward this industry? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. Extreme bias? Huh?

That site is designed to promote healthy, natural foods. What exactly do you think their bias is? Why would they be biased on the composition of agave nectar, something they hope to promote? What do you think the actual composition of agave nectar really is? And why would you not expect the fructose to be high in agave nectar, since nectars typically are high in fructose?

[Cerridwen]

90. That's a very poorly written article and the title of it is misleading.

I'd really like to see the studies to see what ALL the conclusions were.

For example, from one of the researchers of one of the studies:

Some recent data raise new questions. Peter Havel of UC Davis presented a study at an Endocrine Society meeting last month in which he followed 33 overweight and obese adults as they dieted for 12 weeks. During the last 10 weeks, half of them got 25% of their calories from fructose, and half got 25% from glucose. Though both groups gained the same amount of weight – 3.3 pounds – those who had the fructose had an increase in the least-desirable fat (the kind that wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and is linked to higher risk of diabetes and heart disease) while the others did not.

The fructose-eaters (but not the glucose-eaters) also had heightened levels of triglycerides and cholesterol and decreased insulin sensitivity, a danger sign for diabetes.

<snip>

Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina, who was an early proponent of the HFCS-obesity hypothesis. "At the same time, there is a new body of research that suggested HFCS might be linked with higher triglyceride levels and other health effects. This research is too preliminary to make any conclusion."

(emphasis added) (I "trust" the LA Times a wee bit more than usatoady (typo left intentionally))

It also cites John White and calls him an "independent researcher." A quick google finds John S. White, Ph.D. President, White Technical Research, listed as part of the "Scientific Advisory Board" for the http://www.hfcsfacts.com/contacts.html">Corn Refiners Association. I'm not sure how "independent" that makes him. He's also found in this article.

With all the researchers involved in those studies, they then quote, "...Elizabeth Parks, a professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. She was not part of the research." (emphasis added)

So yeah, doesn't contribute, any more or less to weight gain, but it appears to contribute to some other health issues.

As far as my quick google has shown, HFCS hasn't been absolved of too much, at this point. It does show me, however, how easy it is to skew a newspaper article; yeah, that includes the LA Times.

I want to see the studies, dammit!

edit to update subject line

[freestyle]

92. Cheap HFCS contributes to more calories consumed.

Which of course leads to weight gain. A study saying that HFCS is not nutritionally different than sucrose is not terribly meaningful. What needs to be reported is the link between the low cost and high availability of HFCS and increased caloric intake by Americans. The promotion of low direct consumption of dietary fat has also helped the spread of HFCS. The less filling food that results can also lead to increased consumption. The products of industrial agriculture have to go somewhere, and the first option is into us.

[Codeine]

143. Now THAT is a reasonable point.

The problem is not some mythical evil built into HFCS that makes it different for your body than table sugar (as they are chemically quite similar and break down into precisely the same two base components) but that it's cheapness allows it to be dumped into everything and we've grown accustomed to everything being cloying and sweet. We eat too much sugar; whether it be sugar from corn, cane, or beet matters not.

[Psephos]

147. This is one of the few reasoned posts on this thread

Thinking with the emotions is oh-so-satisfying but clearly doesn't lead to scientific conclusions.

[Lorien]

101. OK- then why can I eat items made with sugar and just feel a little light

headed, but eating something made with HFCS drenches me in sweat and makes me so faint that I nearly pass out? (I'm hypoglycemic).

[Codeine]

117. Easy.

Stuff that uses HFCS often uses more sweeteners than sugar products, simply because they are the cheaper, low-rent versions of popular foods and are designed to appeal to kids and people with "sweet tooths." Check the amount of sugars on the label.

[AllyCat]

110. okay, lets suppose that's true. It still stands to reason that it is linked to obesity

The junk is cheaper for food manufacturers so their non-nutritive snacks, etc are easier to come by for most people. The people eat more of it. They get fatter.

It's a completely over-processed sweetener foisted on people in almost everything. Our "honey-roast" peanuts on the plane contained no honey, but the second ingredient was corn-syrup. I cannot find a burger bun at the grocery that does NOT have this crap in there.

[aquart]

111. Didn't test copper metabolism in that study, did they?

<http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html>

-snip-

"Lysl oxidase is a copper-dependent enzyme that participates in the formation of collagen and elastin. Fructose seems to interfere with copper metabolism to such an extent that collagen and elastin cannot form in growing animals--hence the hypertrophy of the heart and liver in young males. The females did not develop these abnormalities, but they resorbed their litters."

-snip-

Collagen. Elastin. THAT'S MY FACE, GODDAMNIT!

[hunter]

120. Fructose interferes with a lot of metabolic pathways.

Some people with certain enzyme deficiencies are fructose intolerant. If they eat fructose it screws up ATP synthesis in their livers and they become very seriously ill.

About a third of the people originating in Central Europe have a different sort of fructose intolerance -- their small intestines lack the cellular mechanisms required to absorb fructose into the blood. The effect is similar to that caused by the sugar in beans: bloating, diarrhea, flatulence, stomach pain...

[LeftyMom]

151. That's a quack site.

:eyes:

[hunter]

155. I just spent way too much time trying to find good sites.

Lots of quack sites going both ways.

But really, all you have to do is look at people and you can figure out that high fructose corn sweetners were a bad idea.

Unfortunately now we've got a huge industry that will play dirty to defend it.

[fascisthunter]

126. lol... sure it is

[SoCalDemGrrl]

152. I don't give a rat's ass what they say, my family DOES NOT PARTAKE!!

Watch the film "King Corn" and then tell me it's ok.

A as Forrest Gump says "that's all I have to say about that".

[Celeborn Skywalker]

157. No surprise.

They're virtually the same thing. I'm semi-diabetic and both cane sugar and HFCS have the same effect on my blood sugar. People who call it "poison" have no clue what they're talking about and, frankly, sound like new-age woo-woo's. Any type of refined carbohydrate will have bad effects if you eat too much of it. It's as simple as that.

[old mark]

159. It's the same damn thing as sugar - it IS sugar. nt

[Locrian]

160. scientific information cascade

For everyone saying that this is "science" and everyone else is tinfoil hatting....

Be careful. It may be, but until you actually READ the study (and understand it, which is hard) you have no idea what the real truth is. Remember, this is being broadcast thru the MSM.

Information cascade is when the amount of "information" is so widely broadcast that it becomes accepted w/o study or review. It's "group think" - which the MSM is top notch for being able to accomplish.

The testosterone/prostrate cancer, estrogen/breast cancer, and the cholesterol/fat/heart disease issues are great examples. If you accept the information cascade / convention wisdom you believe testosterone hormone therapy causes or makes prostrate cancer more likely, and that fat/cholesterol is an indicator of heart issues.

But if you read the actual studies, go to the original sources, and understand what is behind them you realize that its misinterpretation, results being slanted, inconclusive evidence, etc. The reports are actually usually factually CORRECT. But the nuances that are inherent in science are removed to produce a headline for the media. There is nothing wrong with science, there is everything wrong with trying to boil it down to a yes/no answer when there isn't for all cases.

Have not read the HFCS study yet. Would be interesting to get a copy or information from someone actually qualified to READ it and THEN report on it vs relying on talking heads or public relations people.

[hunter]

170. I'll go with that to a certain extent, but it's also true you can't read everything.

From my perspective this one's a stinker on the face of it, the kind of thing a professor might throw out to an undergrad class to hack apart.

Honestly, you've got to be skeptical about a "supplement" with five "it ain't so bad" articles about high fructose corn syrup that appears at exactly the same time as a deceptive coal- or tobacco-style add campaign for HFCSs, from a journal that lives in a house of the USDA, written up in USA Today with commentary by a shill of Big Ag.

Please. How likely is it you'll find a pony in there?

[Mosby]

193. There is no "real truth" in inferential statistical analysis

The problem starts with medical/nutrition researchers who abuse inferential statistical techniques and the media who don't understand it all. For all we know all these "studies" both for and against HFCS consumption are of the "archival analysis" type which are not true experimental models and have very limited usefulness other than generating hypothesis.

[LeftHander]

167. But they put HFCS in EVERYTHING!

Even stuff that doesn't need to be sweet.

[Ms. Toad]

176. That, in my opinion, is the real problem.

Processed food contains so much added sugar, fat, and salt - two out of three being high caloric and (for some people) triggers for craving/not feeling full.

The most convenient source of added sugar is HFCS. Because it is in everything, it contributes to obesity. Not because it has any special characteristics (honey has virtually the same sugar ratios, for example) - but because it is universally present. Whenever it is present it adds calories, bumps up our daily caloric intake, resulting in the excess calories being stored as fat.

Real food is (or at least can be) prepared deliciously without adding substantial sugar, fat, or salt. We have just lost the taste for it and/or the time it takes to prepare it.

[Bill McBlueState]

168. classic internet responses here

Just accuse the source of bias and you get to go on thinking whatever you want.

But if your approach is to reject as biased anything that doesn't fit your existing beliefs, how can you ever *learn* anything?

[hunter]

175. The USA today article cited in the original post isn't biased...

... it throws bullshit right in your face.

Here's what happened -- the HFCS manufacturers saw all those cheerful "No Trans Fats!" labels at the grocery store and it scared the hell out of them.

[Khaotic]

169. It's bullshit

Watch the documentary King Corn and you'll see that there is a fucking direct link between obsity rates and the use of HFCS.

Before 1970 wasn't even used.

As its use in foods and drinks went up, so has the obsity rate.

It's that direct.

Besides ... here in Iowa almost 80% of the corn produced in this state goes to make HFCS.

I hear all this fucking yelling about how we don't have enough corn to make E85. Hmmmmm, I fucking wonder why?

If we did away w/ fucking HFCS then we would have plenty of corn to make E85, and if we modified cars to use 100% ethanol, then we could be making E100. In that case, the fuel used in an E100 vehicle wouldn't come from oil at all.

Besides that, we feed our livestock WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much fucking corn.

It fucks them up and, in turn, fucks us up.

Our meat would be a lot better for us if the livestock were grassfeed instead of corn feed.

We've come to depend on fucking corn for way too much of our lives, and the corn we're using isn't the corn that Native Americans raised 'back in the day.'

The corn has been modified to yeld a bigger crop, and thus it doesn't have much nutritional value in it anymore.

It would be awesome to see fields of corn ... the kind of corn grown by Native Americans hundreds of years ago.

Dudes ... watch King Corn, it's a great documentary.



Educate yourself.

It's a good thing. :-)

[lebkuchen]

181. a New York Food and Drug lawyer told me years ago

that high fructose corn syrup was incredibly unhealthy, but that it was in everything, and he didn't let his kids touch the stuff.

I've avoided it ever since.

Even the shine on apples has it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. I once had a podiatrist from Nebraska tell me to buy Bear Stearns stock.

:crazy:

[Tesha]

188. I hope he didn't get left flat-footed! (NT)

[for-q-bush]

185. BS!

[Sparky 1]

189. An 10,000,000 people in the US have corn allergy

... and even more are sensitive to it. I'm one of them. With many food sensitivities, it's easy enough to avoid the food, but not so with corn. They put it in everything from soup to lunch meat to candy! And we're paying a subsidy for that? Where do we sign up to have this practice stop? I already avoid any product with corn in it. I recommend that more do and maybe they'll have to stop this?

[Hekate]

192. (1) Who sponsored this "new" "research"? (2) HFCS is in damn near everything that sugar never was.

:shrug:

Hekate

[diamidue]

197. No HFCS. No gluten. No soy. No hydrogenated oils.

Avoid them all. You'll thank me someday. ;o)

[Ms. Toad]

231. What's your concern with gluten and soy?

HFCS is sugar - no reason to go looking for extra calories in most foods (which is what adding HFCS to virtually all processed foods does). Hydrogenated oils are bad for cholesterol. I understand concerns about those. I don't agree that HFCS is inherently worse than honey (for example), which has pretty much the same ratio of fructose to glucose - but I do agree that sweeteners, in whatever format, added to every processed food is not healthy.

Avoiding gluten if you have Celiac Sprue is crucial, but aside from that very specific and relatively rare concern why avoid a naturally occurring part of grains that are generally considered healthy for you? And why avoid one kind of bean that people have figured out how to use in a variety of forms as (often) a core part of avoiding eating too much meat?

[mbperrin]

202. Not much worse than black tar heroin, either, probly.

Point out where it says either one is GOOD for ya!















Hmmm,(snort), sorry, musta dozed off.

[TankLV]

205. conversely - no better, either...

[dpbrown]

209. Bullshit

Corn is corn.

If there's a new study, it's because the corn lobby produced it.

[hunter]

212. Now ask yourself, is this the best the corn industry could do???

Experts agree!!!

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/What-the-Experts-Are-Saying-About-High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup.html

http://www.hfcsfacts.com

Lame.

[sandyd921]

214. Not so fast

From the Web MD article on the study:

"But Park says that doesn't necessarily mean that there are no differences in the way the body metabolizes high-fructose corn syrup and other sugars.

Popkin says there is emerging, but still preliminary, evidence suggesting a link between high-fructose corn syrup and heart and kidney disease.

"The obesity question has been answered," he says. "High-fructose corn syrup is no worse and no better than any other sugar (for weight gain). But other questions remain."

New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, PhD, tells WebMD that attempts to label one sugar worse than another misses the point that Americans are eating way too much sugar, no matter what the source."

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20081211/high-fructose-corn-syrups-bad-rap-unfair

[billyskank]

218. What they don't tell you is HFCS is made from PEOPLE!

:D

[Orrex]

222. Sweet, delicious people

Mmm...

[nickgutierrez]

223. "One paper was written by Barry Popkin...

...a co-author on the original 2004 paper."

See, the difference between scientists and the rest of us is that scientists actually go about trying to prove themselves wrong. This paper really just says what we've all been saying all along - we should really lighten up on the sugars. All of the extra sugars, not just this one.

[hunter]

225. Opening the door to HFCS in Mexico...

Hey, if it all makes you fat anyways, why not?

Barry Popkin is "working with the Mexican Health Ministry" and golly look, Pepsico is there too!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20080324-9999-1n24obese.html

It's very simple -- if there is more fructose than glucose in a soda, you get this little buzz that says, "You know what, I could have another soda!"

You don't get that so much with plain old corn syrup or sugar. That's the importance of the enzymatic shift they do in the manufacture of HFCS. Bump the ratio of fructose to glucose up and sales increase, and it's not because "it tastes better."

Mind you, sucrose is no good thing either, especially when it's produced by slave labor. Even in the United States this has been a significant problem. In Latin American countries the problems with sugar production are simply horrific. The workers are used up and literally discarded into the slums when their bodies are too broken to work anymore.

[liberalpragmatist]

224. The issue is not whether corn syrup is more unhealthy -- it's that its subsidized

Such that gollops of the stuff are in everything and that their price is artificially low -- which means people consume more and thereby eat more sugar in the process.

[BreweryYardRat]

230. I'll still try to cut it out of my diet as much as possible, thanks.

Natural sugar, while not spectacularly good for you either, is probably better than some glop that has to be refined a few dozen times.

[joshcryer]

232. It's not *what* you eat it's *how fucking much* you eat!

Common damn sense.

[Scout]

234. so i'd be equally healthy and slender on 1200 calories a day from vegetables

as i would be from 1200 calories a day of beef?

after all, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, right?

i'd be equally healthy and slender if i ate all 1200 of my vegetable calories at one sitting as i would be if i spread them out in 4 or 5 meals, right?

it's not what you eat, or when you eat it, it's just how much, right josh? just common sense right josh?

:rofl:

[ovidsen]

237. How about TASTE??

My family and I don't each much sugary foods. No candy, no processed sweetened breakfast gunk, maybe one soft drink a week.

Hey, maybe the corn industry (fructose) has done me and my family a favor. Fructose flavored foods just taste funny to me.

Coke claims "nobody noticed" when it switched from sucrose (mainly cane sugar) to fructose (corn sugar) a decade or so ago. So did all the other soft drink makers.

Which is probably why I only have a Coke, or Pepsi, or whatever a couple of times a month.

I don't care why ANYBODY says. Sucrose tastes better than fructose.

So, in this case, maybe the soft drink, candy and processed foods industries have done my home unit a favor. We avoid fructose based foods because they taste funny. Overall, probably better for our healthh.

I mean, I miss sucrose. But not THAT much.

[demo dutch]

239. Yeah well I don't buy it, they also claimed that smoking was ok for decades!!!

[Marblehead]

245. my family

will not eat anything with HFCS in it. I am very concerned about GMO foods, corn being a main culprit.