HFCS Prompts Considerably More Weight Gain, Researchers Find

[Mosby]

ScienceDaily (Mar. 22, 2010) — A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

[BadgerKid]

1. Link to the study (Princeton)

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

[BadgerKid]

2. Metabolic difference

Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles

(emphasis added)

[BrklynLiberal]

3. ..and it damages the liver. Guess the HFCS makers better pull those TV ads that say there is no

danger in the use of HFCS instead of cane sugar.

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/03/15/daily44.html

Duke study links high fructose corn syrup with liver damage

The corn industry is facing a new challenge over the health risks posed by high fructose corn syrup. A new study out of the Duke University Medical Center indicates that high consumption of the controversial sugar substitute is associated with liver scarring or fibrosis, similar to the damage caused by heavy consumption of alcohol.

Dr. Manal Abdelmalek, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, says a study of 427 adults who suffer from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, indicated that those who consumed more high-fructose corn syrup were more likely to have increased liver scarring or fibrosis.

NAFLD, which is present in about 30 percent of all adults, is a condition in which fat accumulates in the cells of the liver, which could lead to inflammation or scarring, also known as fibrosis. The damage is similar to that caused by heavy consumption of alcohol, but NAFLD occurs in people who are not alcoholics.

“Unfortunately, there is no therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” said Dr. Abdelmalek. “My hope is to see if we can find a factor, such as increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup, which if modified, can decrease the risk of liver disease.”

<snip>

and adds to insulin resistance = DIABETES!!!

Studies from the American Journal of C Nutrition
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537

article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090303123802.htm

Missing Link Between Fructose, Insulin Resistance Found

ScienceDaily (Mar. 9, 2009) — A new study in mice sheds light on the insulin resistance that can come from diets loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener found in most sodas and many other processed foods. The report in the March issue of Cell Metabolism also suggests a way to prevent those ill effects.

The researchers showed that mice on a high-fructose diet were protected from insulin resistance when a gene known as transcriptional coactivator PPARg coactivator-1b (PGC-1b) was "knocked down" in the animals' liver and fat tissue. PGC-1b coactivates a number of transcription factors that control the activity of other genes, including one responsible for building fat in the liver.

"There has been a remarkable increase in consumption of high-fructose corn syrup," said Gerald Shulman of Yale University School of Medicine. "Fructose is much more readily metabolized to fat in the liver than glucose is and in the process can lead to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease," he continued. NAFLD in turn leads to hepatic insulin resistance and type II diabetes.

Metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes have both reached epidemic proportions worldwide with the global adoption of the westernized diet along with increased consumption of fructose, stemming from the wide and increasing use of high-fructose corn syrup sweeteners, the researchers noted.

High-fructose corn syrup, which is a mixture of the simple sugars fructose and glucose, came into use in the 1970s and by 2005 the average American was consuming about 60 pounds of it per year. Overall, dietary intake of fructose, which is also a component of table sugar, has increased by an estimated 20 to 40 percent in the last thirty years.

<snip>

A side note: When I was up in Canada recently I noticed that the rims of the cans were a different color than those in the US. Just for the hell of it I brought home a can to see if I could see any difference between them.
The US made Coke had HFCS. The Canadian version has Sugar.
Many of my local grocieries carry Mexican sodas, including Coke made in Mexico..and guess what..They use SUGAR, not HFCS.

[aquart]

6. Another coincidence. Both Canada and Mexico

also offer healthcare without the insane caveats and complications we have.

WTF is the US? Guinea pig dumping ground of the manufacturing universe? After, of course, China?

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Anything goes as long there are corporate profits involved...or so it would seem.

[tandot]

4. Interesting.

I've stopped consuming anything with either trans fats as well as HFCS a while ago. I am glad I did.

[mike_c]

5. this is fascinating....

The mechanism is still unclear, and the "extra metabolic step" involved in separating fructose and glucose from sucrose happens BEFORE either molecule is absorbed, i.e. in the lumen of the intestine, albeit in direct association with microvillar plasmalemmae. I'm gonna hold out still and say that the difference HAS to have something to do with differential absorption RATES for free fructorose and glucose vs bound monomers in sucrose. Before they get past the microvillar plasmalemma neither sugar has any direct metabolic effect, and once absorbed, fructose is fructose, no matter where it comes from. The ONLY place where a difference makes sense is at the absorptive surface.

It will be REALLY interesting to see the follow up on this. I want to know the mechanism for the difference in metabolic effect!

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Is this of any use?

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911

[mike_c]

10. unfortunately, no-- it just muddies the view further in some ways....

The paper you cited primarily discusses the differences between physiological responses to fructose and glucose consumption, which isn't surprising at all. Good information to have, and it firmly supports the conclusion that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose, and leads to different metabolic/storage pathways.

The real question is why does fructose from HRCS apparently produce a different response than fructose from sucrose? It's the same molecule in either case, present in approximately the same concentration as in the sucrose dimer. Fructose in sucrose is only "different" before it's absorbed, i.e. while it's still a dimer with glucose. Once absorbed, where the body can metabolically respond, there is no molecular difference between fructose from HFCS and fructose from sucrose. There MUST be some other factor involved that no one has found yet.

One possibility is that unbound fructose takes a different absorption route-- I'm making this up, otherwise known as speculating-- so that the initial RATE of carbohydrate absorption is different, and the initial ratio of fructose to glucose is skewed in favor of fructose. That might initiate metabolic cascades that lead predominately toward storage rather than oxidation or other metabolism. It's all guessing.

It's no mystery that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose-- the real question is why fructose from HFCS is apparently worse than fructose from table sugar.

[AwakeAtLast]

9. I have actively tried to reduce or eliminate HFCS

It is trickier than it sounds. It's literally in everything that has more than one ingredient unless you find those products that don't add it.

I have lost 30 pounds since July.