High Fructose Corn Syrup: Tasty Toxin or Slandered Sweetener?

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501#more-6501

"High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has, over the past few decades, gradually displaced cane and beet sugar as the sweetener of choice for soft drinks, candy and prepared foods. In recent years, there have been a growing number claims that HFCS is a significant health risk to consumers, responsible for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a wide variety of other illnesses.

In fact, there are large amounts of experimental data supporting the claims that high levels of fructose in the diet can cause hyperlipidemia (high levels of fats — triglycerides primarily — in the blood), obesity and insulin resistance and may lead to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes (for a good recent review, see <1>). A high-fructose diet is thought to cause hyperlipidemia (and probably visceral obesity) because fructose is preferentially “sent” to fatty acid synthesis and it also reduces the activity of lipoprotein lipase (for a good review, see <2>). The mechanisms by which fructose causes insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease are less clear (see, for example <3>, <4> and <5>), but there is no shortage of hypotheses. Despite the fact that some of the underlying mechanisms are not clear, the evidence seems pretty solid that there are real risks to high fructose consumption.

However, the question remains — is HFCS more of a health risk than other sweeteners? Many of the sources that demonize HFCS list alternative sweeteners — cane sugar, honey, agave syrup, etc. — that they claim are healthier than HFCS, but those claims usually rest primarily on the fact that these alternatives to HFCS are “natural” rather than any actual data showing that they are safer than HFCS.

...

Still, none of this alters the fact that a diet high in fructose has been shown to cause — or at least contribute to — hyperlipidemia, obesity, insulin resistance and cardiac disease. However, those who have been paying attention will have noticed that HFCS is not the ONLY sweetener that contains significant amounts of fructose.

..."


--------------------------------------------


Berry interesting, or so I say.

At the end of the day, moderation remains the main lesson. Oh, and possibly working on public policies that don't subsidize sugar production of any kind.

[glitch]

1. Especially interesting is this

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_101759.html

Cancer cells slurp up fructose, U.S. study finds

URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_101759.html (*this news item will not be available after 10/31/2010)

Monday, August 2, 2010
Reuters Health Information Logo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

[Lorien]

2. "HFCS more of a health risk than other sweeteners?" HELL YES it is

anyone who has hypoglycemia knows this. Eat or drink something with other sweeteners in it and you'll get extremely hungry two hours later. Eat something with HFCS in it and you'll not only end up famished two hours later, but you'll be drenched in sweat and so dizzy that you may pass out. It's a nasty, lab created toxin, and no amount of industry paid propaganda will change that.

[trotsky]

5. "It's a nasty, lab created toxin"

Really?

Which part of HFCS is the toxin - the fructose molecule, or the glucose molecule?

[kenfrequed]

8. Which part of Salt is salt?

The gaseous chlorine atom or the explosive sodium atom?

[trotsky]

14. That's a beautiful red herring.

However:

1) Fructose and glucose aren't elements
2) HFCS isn't a chemical compound of those

[kenfrequed]

18. Quick chemistry lesson

Structure is everything in chemistry and compounds don't necessarily have the same properties of those contingent molecules and atoms that go into them.

It really isn't technically a red herring as much as it is an analogy and a rather tight analogy at that.

But don't let misusing the rules of logic detract from your incomplete understanding of chemistry, biology, and physiology.

[trotsky]

20. Actually, it's a red herring.

Because it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of HFCS.

Salt is an ionic compound of sodium and chlorine.

HFCS is simply a mixture.

Someone indeed has an "incomplete understanding of chemistry, biology, and physiology." However, that someone is not me.

[kenfrequed]

22. chemically speaking

Both HCFC and salt are called 'compounds'

High Fructuse corn syrup is not merely a mixture. A mixture (or solution if you are talking about fluids) would be where one chemical compound is mixed with another chemical compound in a manner in which either they are not interracting or where the interractions are so slow that they can stay in that state for a long period of time.

Soda, for instance, is a solution of dozens of chemical compounds that remain fairly stable (at least as long as the shelf life one would hope.)

HCFC is a chemical compound comprised of glucose and fructose molecules that have been chemically bonded into a larger molecule. Therefore compound is the correct term and not mixture.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[trotsky]

23. Oh chemically wise one....

if glucose and fructose in HFCS are combined into a new larger molecule, what is this new larger molecule named?

(Bonus question: there is a sweetener that IS a chemical combination of fructose and glucose. Can you name it?)

(This should be good.) :rofl:

[kenfrequed]

24. I'm sorry

I suppose the disaccharide you are looking for is sucrose, or simple table sugar.

But only a complete moron would presume that just because two chemical compounds contain the same atoms or contingent compounds that they would automatically have the same properties. Structure is as important as 'ingredients' in a compound. See also isomer.

Really, this is the stuff of high school chemistry and you should be knowledgeable

And what would be good is if you would start admitting when you have made errors (you know compound vs. mixture).

I won't bother with absurd and mocking little stupid graphics to make my point, anyone with a handy reference can tell you who is right and who is wrong in this little Tête à tête.

[NoNothing]

25. Except he wasn't wrong

HFCS *is* a mixture, not a compound If you take a bottle of glucose and a bottle of fructose and stir them together in the proper proportion, you will have HFCS. The two sugars are *not* chemically bonded together.

[kenfrequed]

26. Uhm no

A dissacharide, which is what High Fructose corn syrup is actually IS a compound, being a fusion of two sugar molecules that are bonded. The fact that they break neatly into fructose and glucose is irrelevant. Obviously sucrose is also a compound and is also considered a dissacaride.

[kenfrequed]

27. Whether or not you believe HFC is horrible or good...

Science is science, if you want to argue that it causes no harm or that studies or inconclusive, or that it has the same effects I don't friggin care. But you cannot claim that a compound is a mixture and you cannot make some idiotic claim that a dissacharaide is not a compound!

[NoNothing]

28. HFCS is NOT a disaccharide!

That is the basis of your misunderstanding.

[salvorhardin]

29. HFCS is NOT a disaccharide. Sucrose IS a disaccharide.

You're right structure is important, but the fact is that within just a couple of seconds of ingesting sucrose (table sugar), your body converts it to HFCS. Very quick acting enzymes in your saliva and stomach snap apart sucrose into its fructose and glucose components. Let me repeat that... Your body converts sugar to HFCS.

[trotsky]

44. I'll pile on, since you were so wrong.

HFCS is NOT a disaccharide, and it only makes it more laughable that you can't even spell that. :rofl:

[laconicsax]

17. Duh! It's the fructose part!

Don't you know anything? Fructose isn't found anywhere in nature--especially not in fruit or any other type of sugar. By mixing fructose and glucose, teh evil scientific conspiracy created a potent toxin to augment thimerosal-laced vaccines in an effort to give 100% of children autism.

Bet you didn't expect me to call out the connection between HFCS and autism, you PHARMA shill!

[trotsky]

21. You work chemtrails and 9/11 into that and I think you might have something.

:rofl:

[laconicsax]

43. Chemtrails are simply an effective delivery method.

Fructose is C₆H₁₂O₆ so one molecule has 96 atoms

A basic thermite mixture is Fe₂O₃+2Al. For a total of 102 atoms if it were a compound. (Everyone knows the towers were brought down with thermite.)

Thimerosal is C₉H₉HgNaO₂S for a grand total of 186 atoms.

One molecule of thimerosal combined with one molecule of thermite has THE SAME NUMBER OF ATOMS as three fructose molecules! (186+102=288. 288/3=96)

They may have pulled thimerosal from vaccines, but they're still getting it into our bodies through HCFS. This also explains the thermitic material found at ground zero--it was from human remains! The body obviously metabolizes fructose into thermite and thimerosal. The thermite goes into our bones, making people into ticking time bombs (just add burning jet fuel) and the thimerosal goes into our brains.

Need any more proof? Mitochondria synthesizes sugar (especially fructose) into ATP, which has 260 atoms! Add a stray water molecule and atmospheric argon, and you're back up to 288!

(Just pretend that atomic weight represents the number of atoms.)

[HuckleB]

12. "Industry paid propaganda."

Perhaps you could read the content of the link before offering such a claim, or any of the other claims you make in your post.

Thanks.

[glitch]

31. They'll get it, eventually.

As with global warming, Nature bats last (and has a killer swing).

[HuckleB]

32. I give you the red herring of the hour award!

Congratulations!

[glitch]

33. Very generous, considering the responses to this thread.

Although technically an analogy isn't a red herring.

[HuckleB]

35. Your "global warming" distraction attempt is a red herring.

Try again.

[glitch]

38. Eventually, assuming the liver can keep a healthy function.

'Brain Fog' could preclude eventual understanding.

Better?

[HuckleB]

39. Now you're on to ad hominems.

Congratulations!

[glitch]

40. Not even close. For your edification:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18395287

Fructose consumption as a risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Ouyang X, Cirillo P, Sautin Y, McCall S, Bruchette JL, Diehl AM, Johnson RJ, Abdelmalek MF.

Division of Nephrology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: While the rise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) parallels the increase in obesity and diabetes, a significant increase in dietary fructose consumption in industrialized countries has also occurred. The increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup, primarily in the form of soft drinks, is linked with complications of the insulin resistance syndrome. Furthermore, the hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis and ATP depletion. We hypothesize that increased fructose consumption contributes to the development of NAFLD.

METHODS: A dietary history and paired serum and liver tissue were obtained from patients with evidence of biopsy-proven NAFLD (n=49) without cirrhosis and controls (n=24) matched for gender, age (+/-5 years), and body mass index (+/-3 points).

RESULTS: Consumption of fructose in patients with NAFLD was nearly 2- to 3-fold higher than controls <365 kcal vs 170 kcal (p<0.05)>. In patients with NAFLD (n=6), hepatic mRNA expression of fructokinase (KHK), an important enzyme for fructose metabolism, and fatty acid synthase, an important enzyme for lipogenesis were increased (p=0.04 and p=0.02, respectively). In an AML hepatocyte cell line, fructose resulted in dose-dependent increase in KHK protein and activity.

CONCLUSIONS: The pathogenic mechanism underlying the development of NAFLD may be associated with excessive dietary fructose consumption.

[HuckleB]

41. Furthering your ad hominem doesn't change what it is.

BTW, thanks for showing that you haven't read the piece in the OP.

:rofl:

[NoNothing]

3. I agree with this:

Too much sugar is the real problem. HFCS is bad just because it is cheap sugar, not because of any quantum-magical chemical properties.

[HuckleB]

13. +1

[trotsky]

4. "HFCS is not the ONLY sweetener that contains significant amounts of fructose"

And that right there is sadly the fact that gets totally ignored in every sweetener thread. If people could be bothered to just understand a few of the basic facts, so much of this "debate" would disappear.

[NoNothing]

6. And furthermore, sucrose is immediately broken down by digestion

Into glucose and...yup, fructose.

[trotsky]

7. Shhh... don't tell them that.

It's an inconvenient fact.

[awnobles]

9. I don't think its that simple

Doesn't the time to break down soften the blow to the system? The manner it breaks down matters just as much as what it breaks down to. The digestion process is different. Because it breaks down to similar component chemicals doesn't mean its the same. This ignores the process, right? To assume that your "it breaks down to" argument is absolute seems a stretch. It sounds good but I think it is an over-simplification. Science catches up to reality in many cases. I agree that people's perceptions can be flawed but in many cases the mis-application of science creates as much confusion as do flawed first hand perceptions.

[NoNothing]

11. Not really, no

It is not a complex molecule and is quite quickly broken down in the stomach, which is why sucrose also gives you a "sugar rush." In fact, because sucrose results in a 1:1 fructose:glucose ratio, fructose absorption capacity is *increased.*

[kenfrequed]

19. That is absurd

Parts of it may be broken down, digested, and filtered by entirely different organs or entirely different enzymes and acids which... yes it basically does change how the body reacts to it.

[aquart]

10. Fine. You eat everything with HFCS on the label.

And I won't.

[salvorhardin]

30. That's right. Like I said further up-thread, your body converts sugar into HFCS! :D

[laconicsax]

42. +1

"If people could be bothered to just understand a few of the basic facts, so much of this "debate" would disappear."

As with many, many more "debates" and "controversies."

[nenagh]

15. I have read that during fructose metabolism in the brain..

it increases the appetite..

And I cannot stand that feeling of eating something and feeling more hungary after eating.. :(

[Ratty]

16. Wow. An interesting, factual, non-hysterical article on HFCS in the Health forum for once

It actually answers a lot of my questions about HFCS. Thanks for posting.

[Dorian Gray]

34. I honestly believe that the main reason HFCS is

so problematic to the general population is that it's in almost everything these days, which means that unless we pay attention, we are eating a LOT of it.

The same amount of any kind of sugar would be just as damaging to our diets.

[HuckleB]

36. Indeed.

[Odin2005]

37. My understanding is that ingested fructose does not induce the release of satiation hormones.

so you consume more of it than other sugars without feeling full.