Scientist now prove: HFCS(corn syrup) causes Childhood Diabetes/Obesity

[Ichingcarpenter]

The Sunday Times

Scientists have proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fuelling the obesity crisis.

Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.

It has increasingly been used as a substitute for more expensive types of sugar in yoghurts, cakes, salad dressing and cereals. Even some fruit drinks that sound healthy contain fructose.

SNIP,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

Fructose bypasses the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of abnormal reactions, including the disruption of mechanisms that instruct the body whether to burn or store fat.

“This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain,” said Kimber Stanhope, a molecular biologist who led the study. “We didn’t see any of these changes in the people eating glucose.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6954603.ece

[glowing]

1. So, taking HFCS out of foods would probably save a lot of money within health care ind.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. +1....... but you will see a fight with

corporate interest with this needed change in US diets

[katandmoon]

180. And the corporate interests will win just like they win everything.

[truedelphi]

210. If we had a true Single Payer Universal HC for all system

Then the government woul dbe seriously motivated to do something about the non-safety of the products we are sold.

[Kablooie]

344. Unless the public stop buying products with corn syrup in it. The word must get out.

Did you know that Coke made in Mexico uses sucrose, not corn syrup?
Look for Coke sold in Mexican communities.

[democracy1st]

2. K & R

[FarLeftFist]

3. Ban that shit.

[otohara]

90. I Agree

and while we're at it....Glade and Glade like problems.

[Lorien]

95. Glade? The air "freshener"? nt

[Zoeisright]

114. Air fresheners are bad for you.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/home/airfresheners.asp

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/2006/airfreshener.cfm

Open a window instead of spraying more chemicals in your house.

[pansypoo53219]

167. beeswax candles too

and i have pin incense. ready when the cat craps. and candles help when cutting onions that make you cry.

[here_is_to_hope]

172. A bit of lemon juice on the onions works really well to

stop that sobbing!

[JDPriestly]

208. Sucking on a bit of white bread while you cut onions will prevent tearing.

Works every time. This was my grandmother's tip.

[otohara]

139. Yes, Toxic - Causes All Sorts of Health Problems

anything with "fragrance" that is not natural oils are toxic and dangerous for all living beings, especially kids, and unborn. Huge problem for those of us with allergies, migraines, autoimmune.

Another pet peeve - dryer sheets - same thing, fragrance and these little things will undo any flame retardation done to infant clothes - not to mention, when you put them in the dryer, the fumes are pumped into the atmosphere.

[pansypoo53219]

169. they have fiberglass.

i stopped those in the 70's as a kid. grandma had skin issues.

[Tansy_Gold]

178. regarding candles, fragrances, etc.

I make, sell, and use small lamps that burn olive oil instead of candles, for 'atmosphere.' I will occasionally add a drop of essential oil to add scent. When I sell the lamps I emphatically tell buyers that if they must have fragrance, they should only use essential oils as anything else -- perfume or fragrance oils -- contain alcohol that can flare or flame dangerously.

I don't know what processes are used to make soy-based candles, but I do know that my little lamps use just plain ol' olive oil (EV or otherwise) straight out of the bottle, they work in any vessel that would contain a candle, they generate less heat and virtually no smoke, and with replaceable wicks they last indefinitely.



Tansy Gold, who hasn't used candles for years

[FarCenter]

187. Some natural oils are bad as well -- for example, urushiol

Do not stand downwind from burning poison ivy.

[louis-t]

193. The makers of these products have convinced people

that you need to hit someone over the head with 'scent' or people won't like you. Some of these 'scents' gag me. Especially vanilla. Or sugar cookie.

[katkat]

232. dryer sheets allergies migraines autoimmune

I wish Jane Public (and Joe Public when he douses himself with aftershave) would realize how much of a problem "fragrance" is for a lot of hapless people around them, like in elevators and buses. Plus it's always baffled my mind why people think this is attractive? Who wants to get close to someone who's drenched in fragrance to the point of asphyxiation?

I stopped using unscented fabric softener as part of sustainable living. Very rarely for a few seconds when I first put something on, I may notice it is a tiny bit scratchy. Otherwise, the change has no impact except to save money and probably help the environment.

[Ms. Toad]

313. Fabric softener is actually a misnomer - the real purpose

is to eliminate the static electricity. I don't care a whit about clothing being scratchy (which doesn't really happen except if I hang it to dry) - I do care about my skirt clinging to or crawling up my nylons and exposing my derriere.

[arikara]

322. Just take your clothes out before they bake in the dryer

I haven't used "fabric softeners" in years, more like decades... and don't have static cling either except for the odd time that I forget the clothes and overdry. Not a problem at all in the summer because they go out on the clothesline.

[Ms. Toad]

326. The summer difference is the humidity level.

No static at all in the summer. And I don't overdry my clothes - I do dry them until they are dry because putting damp clothes into a drawer leads to mildew.

You must live in a very different (more humid during the winter) climate.

[otohara]

328. Misnomer ?? They Still Are Toxic to More Than Your Derrier

wear a skirt or use this http://shop.sixwise.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=155

and spare us the smell and toxins released into the air when their in the dryer.

Also these chemicals infiltrate your clothing and are slowly released into your system every time you wear the clothing.

[Ms. Toad]

333. You do understand the meaning of misnomer - right?

Hint#1: It has nothing to do with whether chemicals are released or not. It has to do with whether the name matches what the product does.

[otohara]

353. Nope, I'm Stoopid

the official Bounce site has thousands (some 2500) of uses for their toxic product...including getting rid of bathroom soap scum, air fresheners for your shoes, boats, hockey bags, etc..., wiping crayon off walls and my favorite rubbing them on your hair to get rid of static.

So I guess you're right. Based on the various stories of "clever" uses for Bounce, they should re-market their toxic sheets things to include air "freshener" and hair conditioner.

I on the other hand, used to use them for what they are advertised for... softening and getting out the wrinkles...until my cotton sweater caught fire due to the flammable chemical properties in the dryer sheets. I'm just glad my hair was not coated with a Bounce to control my own problem with static hair.

http://www.bounceeverywhere.com/en_US/cleveruses/index.jsp

[hedgehog]

319. I grate two bars of Fels Naptha soap ( which has no naptha, BTW)

mix in a box of borax and a box of washing soda. I have no idea if these are the "right" proportions, all I know is 1/4 cup per load in my high efficiency washer works fine and my clothes come out of the dryer nice and soft. (It's disconcerting not to see suds, but the clothes look and smell clean!)

[CoffeeCat]

337. I'm in trouble then...

....I've got a Glade candle going right now, an automatic spray air freshener in the bathroom and
we use Snuggle dryer sheets.

I feel like a foolish sheep. I like this stuff and I like that it makes everything smell nice.

I won't use these things if they will harm my children. I guess I need to read up on this stuff.

[diane in sf]

359. It might interest you to look up the ingredients--they are pretty toxic. Most of that stuff

smells really foul to me and some of the stuff like Bounce can give me migraines.

[Hannah Bell]

360. simmer spices or pine needles on your stove in lots of water, it gives a nice smell.

or dab a little cologne on your light bulbs

or bake bread--that's the fragrance most people like best, lol.

[valerief]

126. +1000!!! nt

[Lorien]

94. Yep. It caused my severe hypoglycemia

I consumed a lot of it as a kid because my mom bought the cheapest pre-packaged food she could find, like so many single moms living on a tight budget. Now it's like kyptonite to me; a few bites or sips of anything containing HFCS and my blood sugar goes haywire, I'm drenched in sweat and too dizzy to stand. Nothing else does that to me! And the government SUBSIDIZES that crap! If they want to subsidize something to help small farmers, how about organic fruits and veggies?

[Sparkly]

145. Wow -- I have terrible hypoglycemia too

but I never related it to HFCS in particular -- I will check labels from now on!!

Any other tips? I HATE that blacking-out thing, it's scary and sometimes embarrassing. :(

[RufusTFirefly]

182. Me too. Protein at breakfast. Whole grains. No caffeine on an empty stomach

And, needless to say, little or no sugar.

Those are the things that have helped me.

[ThomThom]

277. hypoglycemia may also be a symptom of a heart problem

[PatGund]

150. When I lived in the Middle East.....

I was getting foods from the UK and Europe without HFCS. When I came back to the US, everything tasted too sweet to me. Since then, I've been seriously limiting the amount of food with HFCS I eat because it's almost sickenly sweet.

[Qanisqineq]

346. I've noticed that, too

I live in Korea and can shop on the army base, butI am gluten-intolerant. I order a lot of gluten-free foods that come from Europe and don't have HFCS in them either. Things like tomato soup are not only much better tasting, but also have a more natural taste.

[AlbertCat]

138. Ban that shit.

Oh Plu-leez Louise!

How about just not eating a Twinky every 5 minutes.... and washing it down with a Pepsi.

Do the people shoving tons of crap down their throats have no responsibility in this?


Draconian measures are like obsessive eating of crap.

Just eat a VARIETY of things in MODERATION and you will most likely be fine. :eyes:

[intheflow]

144. Often the most healthy foods are the most expensive foods.

Pure juice is about double the price of "fruit drinks." Many breakfast cereals have HFCS, and frozen foods, and packaged foods. It's pretty hard to avoid it our food systems. It's not just junk food and soda.

[yellerpup]

148. Go for the food and not the food substitute.

"Fruit drinks" are not nourishment but fruit juice is.

[intheflow]

151. I agree.

But if I'm living on food stamps and have kids to feed, real juice vs. fruit drink becomes a matter of economics. I've been there, I know. Real juice--real food!--if often more expensive than the crap. You have to feed your family, so you can buy Hi-C to get them some vitamin C, you buy them Yoplait to augment their calcium, etc., you're still feeding them HFCS.

[yellerpup]

190. Quite the dilemma.

I never had kids so I never had to decide between food and non-food. Sad.

[Quantess]

206. I just ate a yoplait "light" and assumed it didn't have any HFCS

I was wrong. Even though it is also sweetened with aspartame, HFCS is the second ingredient on the list!

[vanboggie]

345. Aspartame is a killer, too

My husband is diabetic and was experiencing debilitating migraines, parkinson-type shakes, vertigo and a host of other neuro symptoms. Then I started noticing that his symptoms matched many I kept coming across on web sites warning about the adverse health effects caused by aspartame. He not only consumed a lot of Diet Coke, but as a diabetic consumed many foods with artificial sweeteners. He finally listened to me when I told him that Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, the company who couldn't get the FDA to approve the product until Reagan took office. I think it was the day after St. Ronnie was sworn in that the FDA chief was fired and a new one installed who immediately approved aspartame for market. Aspartame/Nutrasweet is now called "Rummy Juice" around our house. Hubby went off the stuff and started feeling better within days. In a couple of weeks' time even friends and family noticed the difference in him. The negative symptoms and health problems disappeared. Sad part is that even the medical community won't acknowledge the dangers of aspartame. Monsanto owns the Rummy Juice now and even has the American Diabetes Association declaring it is safe when it actually interferes with insulin production and can cause cravings and weight gain.

Just the other day I threw out everything in the house containing aspartame. I tossed a LOT of food and left a lot of empty space in our cupboards. At one point I asked my husband if we should be giving it to a food pantry, but he said no - that if he won't eat it he's not giving the poison to anyone else.
Most diabetics scan food labels looking FOR sugar substitutes. We look at them to make sure they don't contain any.

[Kali]

291. vitamin c in tabs is cheaper and won't contribute to "sweet drink" addiction

and plain yogurt in bulk with frozen strawberries WAY cheaper, even if you want it sweetened you can control the amount and type.

[tridim]

301. My fave: Plain Yogurt, granola cereal, almonds, frozen blueberries and honey.

OMG is that stuff good!

[arikara]

327. Healthy doesn't have to be expensive or difficult

How about plain yogurt flavoured with a real flavourful ripe banana (often can buy on sale) and mashed into it, or buy a bag of cheap apples to make some applesauce yourself and mix it in with the plain yogurt.

Often apples don't even need any more sweetening, but you can use a bit of honey if you want more. I don't use a recipe myself... just peel the fruit if it isn't organic, slice, core add a tablespoon or 2 of water in the bottom of the pot and simmer on low heat until softened and mashable - 20 minutes or so. Add some cinnamon if you like. This will keep in the fridge for a week or more, so make a big potful. You can make sauce like this with lots of different fruits and berries in season that are on sale. Once the kids get used to things being less sweet you can just slice any fresh fruit into the yogurt. Throw in a spoonful of raw oatmeal and flax seeds for fiber and you have a good cheap healthy breakfast.

I've taken to buying / picking whatever berries are in season and freezing to use for various things. Frozen blueberries are like little popsicles, the kids love them and they are way healthier than any prepared crapola. I buy next to nothing that is processed, I spend very little in the grocery store and don't spend much time in the kitchen either.

Just a couple ideas, I hope it helps you and your kids.

[intheflow]

331. My son is 27 and married.

But perhaps your suggestions will help others.

My real point is that I would say at least 50% of parents have no more knowledge of good nutrition than they do of politics or world events since most people go through life caught up in their own lives that the most they want to read or see on tv is, well, the crap they see and read on tv. Unless Oprah has a segment onit, and even then, working mothers would probably never see the episode. What parents DO see is ad after ad after ad for products with HFCS. Then, if they cut coupons to save money, those same products getting pitched on tv--"Fortified with real vitamins! A good source of calcium!"--are the same items for which coupons are offered. If you're poor and stressed and don't have time or energy (or education) to read nutritional labels, it's very easy to believe you're feeding you're kid good food when you're feeding them poisons.

It's really about the need to educate people, to get the word out about the crap in our foods, and also in our kitchens (plastic containers leeching and teflon as a carcinogen, to name a couple). Society won't change until a critical mass of people know the problem even exists.:(

[MISSDem]

365. Thank you for your very helpful advice. It just goes to prove wrong

the thing we hear all of the time that "healthy food is too expensive. That's why all of the poor people eat junk". It is just ridiculous. Take a bag of rice, some beans and a few spices and you can have the healthiest meal ever and it is very inexpensive. It is also delicious. People are just lazy and in the habit of eating junk food and have grown to prefer it cause fat and sugar are addictive.

[AlbertCat]

202. It's not just junk food and soda.

I understand that.

But one can eat pasta everyday...and even frozen dinners. But you don't have to eat a pound of pasta, or 3 frozen dinners. MODERATION!


And the article is about CHILDHOOD diabetes and obesity. Kids need to be made to eat good thing or just go hungry. Parents who cook should get MAD at their kid who don't eat what they've worked to make for them.

I don't cook for my friends anymore. I'm no chef either. But this one won't eat beans(!)...this one hates spinach... that one doesn't like onions....this one only likes one type of cheese....lamb is "gross"!....on and on.

I can only assume their parents didn't make them eat their veggies. Spoiled brats. And I was taught when someone cooks for you, you at least TRY everything whether you like it or not out of politeness. Rude spoiled children! It's not like I'm serving grasshoppers and snakes, y'know.

Now, I don't like everything, but I try things I don't like (like white fish) from time to time because tastes change over time. It's called being open minded....

[emmadoggy]

343. You do realize that

a little here and a little there still adds up to a LOT of this crap, don't you? Do you realize how prevalent HFCS is? It's everywhere! I've recently started cutting it out of my diet - not 100% (that's REALLY difficult), but I've reduced it a lot. But it is in SO many things and our kids are being fed many foods in their SCHOOL LUNCHES with HFCS.

Want a little flavor for your food? Well, ketchup, BBQ sauce, and most other condiments, sauces and marinades contain HFCS. BREAD has HFCS. And the list goes on...

This isn't simply a matter of people stuffing their faces too much.

[mistertrickster]

164. And 8 year old kids are supposed to know that? nt.

[AlbertCat]

205. YES!!!!

They know everything about their favorite team or band....why can't they know about what they eat? Kids aren't stupid, y'know.

[fascisthunter]

274. Kids aren't stupid... but why do they not know about nutrition?

I'd let you borrow my eyes and ears for a day if I could but that's just not gonna happen.

I see it everyday, my girlfriend who works for the Boy's and Girl's Club in the city of Boston, sees how inner city kids eat and you end up finding out why. This of course differs from individual to individual, but the main culprit? Lack of knowledge and the inability to pay for healthier food. Kid's on their own, no parents around to cook or clean, most do not even have two parents so making ends meet is really tough for folks here in this city. With a lack of guidance these kids are almost on their own. Is it the parents fault or is it the system we all live in? It's both...

[ThomThom]

280. doctors don't know about nutrition, parents don't know either

but if kids eat good from the beginning they won't want sugary sweet stuff.

[fascisthunter]

355. this is true...

[dustbunnie]

207. Yes, by that age children should know that eating sweets rots their teeth

and is bad for them. Not that they're likely to care about consequences at that age, but it's the right age to begin teaching good habits.

[LisaM]

196. Except that the products themselves changed

not to mention, HCFS makes you crave more.

I think it is a huge disservice to the consumer to literally change the products they've always eaten. It's very insidious.

[PHIMG]

198. wow sounds like a commerical

from the corn growers association.

i suppose lead in kids toys is fine in moderation too?

we need to go with the precautionary principle.

the innovation of making sugar out of corn is not worth the cost. unless u are a corn refiner.

[JDPriestly]

211. I think these types of sugars are "addictive" in the sense that

the body does not feel satisfied after eating them. Personally, I learned early on to substitute real fruit for juices and sugary things. I'm not getting the right kind of sugar apparently, but I am only getting small amounts of any sugar.

[rambler_american]

227. Check labels

HFCS is in damn near everything! Hard to avoid.

[Luminous Animal]

244. The problem is,

sugar is in much of the food that we eat that we consider nutritious.

[Jakes Progress]

252. Too entrenched.

Just avoiding twinkies and pepsies won't do it. I know it's all libertarian and everything to blame anyone but the guys making the loot, but this stuff is buried deep in almost all the foods you can get. Avoiding it takes major time and money commitment. Banning it, because it is harmful, would be the only way to be sure that it was avoided. If you want a big old bottle of corn syrup, you could always get a prescription.

[dustbunnie]

263. In that case, the HFCS will be replaced with sugar again, which is just as fattening.

Cakes and other processed junk will simply see a replacement of the HFCS with sugar and some other chemical additive as the preservative.

People drinking gallons of soda a day, and eating huge portions of crap, will still be as obese as ever. Illnesses will continue to plague them.

Yes, it (usually) costs extra and takes more time and effort, but in either scenario, the only way to eat well is to make it from scratch yourself.

[hedgehog]

321. I think the point of the OP was evidence that HFCS is

not the same as table sugar!

[dustbunnie]

334. The OP is an article that is loosely based on a study that has nothing to do with HFCS.

It concerned itself with the effects of fructose and glucose, separately.

There's more info in the rest of the thread.

[Raster]

325. NO! I am diabetic and HCFS does not equate to regular sugar.

HFCS is NOT metabolized like regular table sugar, which is half glucose and half fructose. HFCS is metabolized directly by the liver, and is recognized as the prime cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

There are major differences. Don't believe the HFCS PR!

[dustbunnie]

336. HFCS is also roughly half glucose, half fructose.

But that's not the point. People who are obese due to the mass quantities of soda and processed foods they consume will be obese regardless. Sugar is no magical, calorie-free, healthful food. It carries it's own health risks and totally contributes to tooth decay and obesity.

In essence, to stay healthy and at normal weight, it's best for people to avoid or highly regulate consumption of the foods that currently carry HFCS even if the switch were made back to sugar. You can't argue with that.

[Raster]

338. There are other health issues surrounding HFCS. And I did NOT say that sugar is

"...magical, calorie-free, healthful food."

"In essence, to stay healthy and at normal weight, it's best for people to avoid or highly regulate consumption of the foods that currently carry HFCS even if the switch were made back to sugar. You can't argue with that." I wouldn't even try. As previously stated, I am diabetic. However, research is now showing that HFCS carries it's own little evil set of qualities, for example, the tendency for HFCS to induce fatty liver disease, which, "regular" sugar does not appear to do so.

[dustbunnie]

347. Fatty liver disease is caused by a number of factors, including obesity.

And overeating sugar can be a culprit just as much as HFCS is.

[Raster]

350. Actually, HFCS has *specifically* been implicated, moreso than regular table sugar.

Yes, overeating sugar is not good for the liver either. However, there are strong indications *specifically* concerning HFCS.

I'm not going to belabor the point with you. I've done the research, so has my Endocrinologist, AND a good friend who is a research scientist (dual degrees: MD and Phd. in chemistry) studying just that: the link between HFCS and fatty liver disease.

You have a nice day!

[dustbunnie]

351. Well I guess all those Europeans with fatty liver disease must be sneaking HFCS into their diets.

The government allows very little of it into processed foods and yet, these people are STILL suffering from the disease. Really strange isn't it? Mexico's food is as free of HFCS as is Europe's. And yet, the rate of obesity in Mexico is sky high, surpassing that of the US. Why it's mind boggling! Unfathomable how that could happen.

You say sugar is not a great food, and I'm not saying HFCS is a great food. They're both garbage ingredients people should steer clear of as much as possible.

My only point, as it remains, is that the people guzzling down a liter of HFCS soda every day would continue to do so if it was replaced with sugar. That's 10 tablespoons of sugar right there every day just from a beverage.

You say HFCS is *extra* bad. How much worse does it have to be than drinking 10 tablespoons of sugar a day in addition to the shit food laden with more sugar and the fat that people eat?

You have a nice day too. I'm sure we'll both enjoy it sugar and HFCS free.

[Raster]

352. I agree. Both are horrible. Sugar: it's the other white powder.

[MISSDem]

265. It's not THAT hard to do. Personally, I do not eat it.

But I buy very little, if any, prepared/boxed food. I do cook almost all of my food from organically grown stuff and then freeze it for meals later. Right now I have 4 or 5 different kinds of soup frozen in individual containers, lasagna, pasta with red sauce, chili and a Mexican ish casserole in the freezer just waiting to be heated for dinner when I get home. It takes planning and desire to eat well. My grocery bill for a month is probably under $100.00 and I eat healthfully without HFCS and I never eat out.

[dustbunnie]

271. My sentiments exactly.

Time saved by making larger quantities and freezing them makes up for some of the convenience of ready-made crappy processed/canned/packaged food. The end result tastes a whole lot better and you can feel the difference in energy and general wellness.

A single mom I know with two kids and a lean budget makes fun family nights out of preparing large batches of food. The kids are absorbing good habits while they learn to cook with Mom, they get to spend time together (even though she works long hours), and they eat well and cheaply.

[Ms. Toad]

316. I'd like to see that budget

I can easily eat healthy food for a little over a dollar a meal - but not if I am eating organic.

[Jakes Progress]

332. Issue that poster a halo.

And get a brace for that arm.

[MISSDem]

358. You prove my point made later here. People make fun of

you if you try to eat healthy and encourage others to do the same. No matter to me. It's your arteries.

[Jakes Progress]

361. No they don't.

They make fun of you when you self-congratulate yourself on how holisticer than thou you can be.

You also glaze over the point of how entrenched this is in the food that millions of people eat. it is not good for people to eat it. But if you expect every soul on the continent to become vegan vigilantes and grow their own wheat types, you miss the point. Ain't gonna happen. It floats your boat, that is just fine. But you get fun made of you when you jump up and down and say how much better the world would be if everybody was as good as you and thought like you. They don't. And allowing corp-agra to continue to make billions selling the crap is just wrong. The next logical step in your argument would be to eliminate all food processing regulations and stop meat inspections. Of course you don't mean that, but you just wanted to jump in and tell everyone how cool and smart you were even if it meant you defend corn oil profiteers' rights to their evil ways.

[MISSDem]

364. Whoa!! Where did all of that come from?

I am not a vegan and I don't grow my own wheat. But if my telling how I manage to eat healthy makes you feel defensive, then I'm sorry for you. But I am not trying to be cool just give advice to a world that needs it very much. Many of us are over weight and have unhealthy habits and if I don't join in and fit myself into the mold, you mock me. Too bad!!! You are damn straight I will bragg about my 110/70 blood pressure and near perfect weight which comes from my thoughtful eating habits.

[Jakes Progress]

370. Hence the halo donation.

You are such a perfect person. Let's not go after corporate agriculture or the drug companies. Let's let them go ahead and keep putting crap in food and getting rich. You can gloat over the fools that buy the stuff. The kids who drink too much soda, the poor people who lack the funds for an organic life style. They can just get sick so that the asses who sell this crap can keep on getting richer. You do know that that was the point of the post about banning the stuff, don't you? An extension of your logic would be that we don't need any traffic laws or need to get drunk drivers off the road. Any person as sane as you will know just to stay home and not go out on the road. Sheesh. Get over yourself..

[MISSDem]

371. You are wrong. Why should there be yet another law to try to

enforce what folks should do anyway. The books are full of laws to protect us but do they work? No. Look at the clean water act - do you have any idea how bad the water you drink is? What good is the "law" on that? People have to actually think for themselves and take control of their own health. No one else is going to do it for you. There are "laws" again drunk driving but does it still happen much, much too often? Of course it does. And do people walk away from punishment after they break the "law"? Of course. Give me a break on your hope for "going after corporate agriculture or the drug companies". This does not work. Individual responsibility and refusal to buy things that are bad for you does work.

[Jakes Progress]

373. Difficult to address such sloppy thinking.

Because corporations violate the clean water and aid act, you propose doing away with them?

Because some people drive drunk, you advocate doing away punishing those who kill others while doing so?

Because some get away with crimes, you advocate doing away with laws?

You advocate anarchy. Everyone do whatever they want whenever they want and to hell with who it violates. You advocate everyone to their own devices. You advocate the elimination of the social contract in our society.

You, of course, will say you don't mean any such thing. But your arguments do exactly that. Your arguments were devised and pieced together to defend your original silly post which was really about how cool you are. Then you had to parse together some kind of libertarian clap trap to try to defend your position that their should not be laws against putting harmful substances into public food.

Keep digging. The further you go, the worse you sound.

[MISSDem]

375. You have grown tiresome.

Ciao

[hedgehog]

320. Just about anything in the supermarket past the produce section

has HFCS added. Just check the labels. I mean, spaghetti sauce!?! For a real fun time, look how much stuff has HFCS and hydrogenated vegetable oil.

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[snagglepuss]

5. K & R nt

[AllyCat]

6. Wish this crap would be taken out of food, but I'm curious about the use of "fructose"

The way they have written this implies all fructose which would mean fruit is bad for you??? I hate HFCS and my husband and I have done almost everything we can to keep it out of our kids' diets.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Fructose is a molecule.

There's no difference between fructose in fruit and fructose in HFCS any more than there's a difference between the water in fruit and the water in Coca-Cola.

[AllyCat]

31. Uh, I know that. My point was that it said "fructose" causes all this stuff

So do we stop eating fruit because it has fructose in it?

After I posted, I read the whole link and it talked about percentages of fructose in fruit as 5-10% and in HFCS is 55%. Seems the larger concentration is likely the culprit. I just don't want people to see that and think that they shouldn't eat something healthy like fruit because of this. Of course, I'm sure most Americans will continue to eat HFCS because it's cheap and easy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. So eating a bushel of oranges a day could be hazardous to your health.

I've been off HFCS for years, reading labels and buying only foods that are processed with real sugar. Tried various sugar substitutes, but they are all such chemical stews that I don't trust them. If my great grandmother could cook with sugar in 1900, using twice as much sugar in everything than we do today, without giving everybody in the family diabetes, I figure sugar is good enough for me.

[yellowcanine]

96. Actually yes - overeating oranges could give you too much sugar.

And people got Type II diabetes in 1900 also. My great grandfather had it. A lot of sugar is not good for you, no matter what form it comes in although it is true if one were to eat pure glucose they could probably get away with eating more sugar because the glucose would not be stored as fat as quickly as is fructose. But oranges contain sucrose so you are still getting half fructose.

[JDPriestly]

212. Eating a bushel of oranges a day would be very hazardous but not

just because of the amount of sugar.

With regard to our grandmothers, we should remember that they did a lot more physical work then, rode horses and walked and probably tended animals or had at least a small garden. We combine our unhealthy eating habits withe sedentary lifestyles.

My grandmother did not sit and watch TV for hours on end back in 1900.

[mike_c]

159. I'm late to the party but people need to understand that "fructose"...

...is NOT synonymous with "fruit." Fruit contains numerous sugars, including glucose, fructose, and the disaccharide sucrose, which is a glucose-fructose dimer.

The most commonly used high fructose corn syrup contains BOTH glucose and fructose in about the same 50-50 ratio that sucrose-- table sugar-- contains. It is essentially pre-digested sugar, so although this study might indicate health problems with HFCS, it is not at all obvious how those difficulties arise, since the ratio of glucose to fructose in HFCS is similar to the ratio in plain table sugar (caveat-- I have not read the original article yet, just the OP).

[FarCenter]

192. In they article, they explain that they used glucose-sweetened drinks

They compared subjects consuming fairly high amounts of fructose sweetened drinks with others consuming the same amounts of glucose sweetened drinks. Both groups gained weight, but the locations at which fat was deposited and the impacts on the regulation of metabolic processes were different.

It is, of course, unclear whether there would be any adverse effects if the subjects had consumed smaller amounts consistent with maintaining their weights.

Odds are that we are evolutionarily adapted to consuming the fructose in a few pieces of fruit per day as part of a wider balanced diet with no ill effects.

We are not adapted to consuming a six-pack of soda per day, regardless of the type of sugar used as sweetener.

[kestrel91316]

168. Probably not wise to be drinking as much juice as Americans do.

Eating actual fruit, with its fiber and other nutrients, is a wiser choice. I don't drink any juice anymore, just maybe orange juice a couple of times a year. I do eat lots and lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. I can afford produce because I don't buy many processed foods.

[Hekate]

32. The point seems to be that HFCS is derived from CORN, not apples or bananas, and that....

... it has been processed to be "high" fructose, as in 10 times higher. The scientists are saying that there IS a difference.

I'm still trying to learn about this, and am reading labels more. If I had known it was in everything 20 years ago, I would have started avoiding it then. Since it acts on the liver, I wonder if it also is implicated in higher cholesterol levels.

Hekate

[AllyCat]

35. My mom has high cholesterol and has been on a low-cholesterol diet and

meds for years with no change. She has a sweet tooth a mile wide (she is thin with diabetes, interestingly enough). Her doctor finally got clever and started looking at her triglycerides which are through the ceiling and asked about her sugar intake. Of course, she told him about all the candy she has around the house, flavored coffee drinks, ice cream, sweet rolls for breakfast etc. He told her all that sugar is probably contributing to her cholesterol problem. Her liver enzymes are really out of whack. it seems reasonable this could do the same thing.

[Techn0Girl]

276. If her liver enzymes , sugar metabolism and cholesterol are out of wack she might want to consider..

a test for Hep C

[AllyCat]

362. Hep C. At 70+ years. I'm sure that's it.

Sorry to be snarky. But when one sees my mom, the last thing you think of is HepC, or B, or A.

[Techn0Girl]

363. Snark does not equal knowledge....

although a certain class of people often mistake it for such.
Best wishes for your mom - thankfully she has an actual doctor looking out for her.

[yellowcanine]

98. High fructose corn syrup is still on average about 50 % fructose, the same as sucrose.

[Hekate]

118. In your mind, does this cancel out the research on how HFCS acts in the body?

I like to be precise, myself, but the issue here is what the effects of HFCS are and why.

Hekate

[Luminous Animal]

122. Even the FCS industry admits that that there is a difference.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/myths-and-facts/faqs-high-fructose-corn-syrup/HFCS-sugar
"In terms of chemical structure, table sugar and high fructose corn syrup differ by the bonding of their sugars. Table sugar is a disaccharide, in which fructose and glucose are linked by a chemical bond.9 Fructose and glucose are not bonded in high fructose corn syrup, and so are sometimes referred to as “free” sugars."



I do believe that science is trying to figure out the effect of these ubiquitous "free" sugars.

[FarCenter]

194. The first step in sucrose digestion is to break the bond between the glucose and fructose

Hydrolytic cleavage of sucrose, like that of of maltose, occurs in the brush border at the surface of the intestinal epithelial cells. The enzyme responsible is β-fructosidase. Both sugars are then taken up by specific transport: Glucose by the SGLT1 transporter, and fructose by the GLUT5 transporter, which is named after glucose but in fact is more active on fructose than on glucose.

From "Metabolism of sucrose and fructose"
http://watcut.uwaterloo.ca/webnotes/Metabolism/page-4.1.html

[KittyWampus]

54. Would you explain what the "H" in HFCS refers to. Thanks.

Oh, and although we can say a molecule of X is a molecule of X, no molecule in real life exists in a vacuum.

Fructose only exists solely as fructose in a science lab. In the real world, fructose exists and interacts with other molecules and chemicals etc.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

67. H = High

High Fructose Corn Syrup.

[jgraz]

155. As in: you'd have to be HIGH to eat that shit.

[nebenaube]

278. wrong...

HFCS is not pure fructose. It is a synthesis product in which the desired reactants have reached equalibrium. Think about it... it's high fructose corn syrup. There are other -oses in it.

[ThomThom]

281. not true high fructose corn syrup is not good for you

The body turns everything you eat to sugars. Sugar doesn't need changing and that is why it gives you instant energy. Corn syrup is turned into fat on consumption and is very difficult for the body to use that is why people that eat this stuff get obese. The glycemic index will tell you how fast different food are absorbed by the body.

[cascadiance]

103. I think the way HFCS is processed adds to it being harmful...

I'll need to recheck the articles, but the way HFCS is digested is not natural. Add to that, it is also felt to be addictive too. That your body doesn't know when to stop craving more of it either, which causes people to drink more HFCS drinks, etc. than they should or perhaps would normally if more natural sugars were used.

[Zoeisright]

116. I agree.

It's not a 'real' food. And like trans fats, anything we eat that isn't 'real' just might cause health problems.

[HillbillyBob]

216. plus

something like 90% of HFCS comes from BT Genie corn

[caseymoz]

The main sugar in fruit is sucrose.

Same as cane or sugar-beet sugar.

People thing due to the name that fructose gets its name from being a sugar in fruit. No.

[jeff47]

246. Sucrose is fructose and glucose

Sucrose is a fructose and glucose stuck together. The one bond holding them together is broken very, very easily, and very, very quickly by our digestive tracts.

If you consume sucrose, you are eating equal portions of fructose and glucose.

If you consume HFCS, you are eating (approximately) equal portions of fructose and glucose.

[caseymoz]

354. Which makes a major metabolic difference, apparently.

. . . that they are stuck together. Similar to hydrogen being stuck to oxygen to form water, and it makes a big difference if you inhale hydrogen and oxygen or if you inhale pure water.

If these studies are to be believed, and fructose and sucrose should be thought of as different compounds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

295. It also depends on the fruit; some have more fructose than other sugars

eg, per 100g fruit (source:

apple: 2.3g glucose 7.6g fructose 3.3g sucrose
pear: 1.9g glucose 6.4g fructose 1.1g sucrose

while some are more sucrose, eg

apricot: 1.6g glucose 0.7g fructose 5.2g sucrose

[TreasonousBastard]

8. The referenced study is here...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/

for those who know how to read this sort of thing.

[AllyCat]

36. Thks!

[shireen]

173. but it's dated May 1st (publ. date for journal.) nt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

213. That is the study; the Sunday Times has only just noticed it

It was noted in Medical News Today back in April http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147135.php

and Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182151.htm

No-one else has actually been very excited about it. I suspect because no-one uses either all-fructose or all-glucose as an ingredient.

[stray cat]

302. Its a good reputable science journal - proposed biochemical pathway below

Both promote weight gain (no surprise) but there is a differenc in insulin sensitivity.

[Goldstein1984]

9. It will never be banned. It has to be boycotted.

the CEOs of HFCS producing companies like Cargill will sit in a congressional hearing and testify that they do not believe there is a link between HFCS and health problems. Political donations will occur.

Consumers need to boycott products with HFCS.

[KittyWampus]

55. It is partially being boycotted. That's why the industry put out commercials saying HFCS is good for

you.

Two Moms at a soccer game and the cool Mom serves the drinks with HCFS. Mom not serving that drink is made to look like she's strange.

[Hekate]

72. When I saw the first of those ads I knew that I was not the only one boycotting, and that...

... it was having an effect. :D

Or, that the industry was reading the scientific reports and using their billions to act pre-emptively. :-(

Hekate

[AllyCat]

84. I think I am really glad our TV broke this past spring and we never replaced it

Can't believe they can run crap like this!! And more amazing that people believe it.

[Goldstein1984]

113. Read every label

Yes, we've been avoiding it, too.

But it's everywhere.

We're working to get it out of our grandchildren's diets now.

[MISSDem]

268. Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

If you try to do anything healthy, people think you are funny. I was agonizing over bread in Kroger one day (I couldn't get to Whole Foods to get what I usually buy, ie, Ezekiel 4:9) and two women came up. One said "what kind of bread do you want?" and the other said, loudly,"it doesn't matter. Bread is bread!". The ignorance is breath taking as far as nutrition is concerned.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

69. We are starting to boycott them

That is why more and more commercial products are labeling no HFCS and no trans fats. It is response to consumer demand.

[surrealAmerican]

73. While it is very unlikely that the US would ban HFCS ...

... other countries might. If we see enough such bans, the US would have to take a serious look at the possibility.

[ElboRuum]

222. A ban is unlikely...

because a ban typically needs the "harmful in any quantity" sort of gravity behind it.

The problem with boycotts is that in this case, nearly everything available in your local grocery store has replaced sugar with HFCS where it can. It's cheaper than cane or beet sugar (sucrose) and as such looks better on a quarterly report.

[The Doctor.]

10. While this has been 'known' for years, It is nice to see a publicized study.

It is not a coincidence that diabetes type II saw a marked increase in just 2 decades.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. The Study came out of California ..the news came from Britain

I wonder when you will see US news touch this?

[silverweb]

16. You noticed that, too, huh?

I just sent the UK article, the source NIH study, and some acid commentary to family and friends. They might never hear about it otherwise.

[Hekate]

34. Two of my siblings are diabetic now, and I am pre-diabetic. This has really been a WTF thing for us

... because diabetes did not "run in the family" until our generation, or if it showed up at all it was in old age.

And we thought we were eating healthy.

Hekate

[winyanstaz]

39. Have you looked into natural cures and remedies for diabetes?

I am not sure if I am allowed to send you a post on that but just looking in google works too :) just in case you have not looked into that yet. :)
Not everyone is into herbal and natural remedies like I am so I think everyone should check with their regular doctors first before starting any herbal remedies.
Here is one I found interesting.
http://www.ayurvediccure.com/homeremedies_diabetes.htm

[dgibby]

146. Have you read anything about diabetes and gastric bypass surgery?

Some really facinating stuff. Seems an usexpected consequence of GBS is a reversal of diabetes. Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/expert.q.a/04/29/diabetes.reversal.bariatric.brawley/index.html

Just one article, but google gastric bypass surgery + diabetes. Lots of articles.

[Hekate]

197. I've read that before & it's interesting, but none of us is a candidate for bypass, thank God.

Both my brother and sister have vigorously gone into dietary control, checking blood sugar frequently, and weight loss with success. They are, however, still diabetic.

For myself, I suspect I was insulin resistant for several years before my glucose levels spiked enough for my doc to take note. Even though I modified my diet I neither lost weight nor kept the glucose levels down very much. Finally my doc put me on Metformin several months ago, and lo and behold both my weight and glucose dropped. So did my cholesterol. He's positively ecstatic and says that at the moment I am no longer pre-diabetic.

I'm happy, but I do worry that I may not be able to avoid diabetes at some point. 20+ years ago when my cholesterol started rising I did everything right (and I do mean everything) and it still soared out of control until I was put on a statin. I'm happy to still be on Metformin, but my sis is concerned that I don't have the tool I need that has helped her so much: a glucometer to self-monitor during the day, rather than a lab test every 3 months.

Hekate

[shanti]

335. sounds like me and my sis

she is diabetic, i am borderline diabetic. nobody else in the family is diabetic, doesn't run in the family - until now. i used to be a heavy soda drinker, but even cutting that out doesn't help when HFCS is in so many other things. the only way i see around this is to go totally organic, and i don't have the money for that. :(

[Nikki Stone1]

12. How long has this stuff been used?

Thanks.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. The discovery of HFCS was in 1971

I imagine about 8 years after that it was in full force
and by the 80s it was in everything

[thesquanderer]

127. (message deleted)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. That's it. I'm not eating any more fruit.

That shit is poison.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. -1

You don't read do you?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. -1 for what?

How is fructose in fruit any different than fructose in Coca-Cola? The only difference is the amount consumed.

[diane in sf]

20. the sugar from fruit is not usually loaded with mercury from processing like HFC among

other differences. Fruit also has roughage, minerals, vitamins that you won't find in processed sugar drinks.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Mercury is not fructose.

Mercury is not causing fat deposits in the obese. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and I'm going to bet that you can't even cite a reputable source for your nonsensical claims about mercury.

fruit also has roughage, minerals, vitamins that you won't find in processed sugar drinks.

Roughage, minerals, and vitamins would not alter the alleged fat deposits claimed in the article. Nobody is arguing that fruit is as unhealthy as soda drinks, but the "processed sugar" fructose in those soda drinks is exactly the same as fructose found in fruit.

[Dorian Gray]

42. It's probably about the disproportionate

amount of fructose in items containing HFCS vs. fruit.

[FarCenter]

115. HFCS is about 55% fuctose in soft drinks; the sugar in apples is 71% fuctose

Put down that fruit and step away from the table!

Actually, unconverted corn syrup is one of the few foods with glucose as 100% of the sugar.

The glucose is enzymatically converted to fructose. HFCS comes in various concentrations of fructose, with 42 and 55% fructose being the most common.

[Luminous Animal]

121. Except you'd have to eat 50 apples to equal 8 0z of soft drink.

[FarCenter]

132. A 150 gram apple would have about 9 grams of fructose; a soda would have about 23 grams

So about 2.5 average apples equal a can of HFCS soda for fructose content.

Very few people eat enough fruit to cause a problem.

[Luminous Animal]

243. I was exaggerating because I didn't have time to look it up.

But, you are right, very few people eat enough fruit to cause a problem. The problem arises when much of the rest of the food people eat, condiments, breads, cereals, and sauces, contain sugar and, for the most part, HFCS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. 2 small apples, actually

Keep in mind the amount of fructose found in 2 apples or 2 oz of honey is the same fructose in 1 can of soda.

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/digestive-health/nutrition/low-fructose-diet.pdf

USDA says apples contain 5.90 grams of free fructose, and 2.07 grams of sucrose (ie about 1 more gram of fructose) per 100g. The reckon a medium apple is about 180g, so 2 apples is about 6.9 * 360/100 = 25g of fructose.

a 12 oz can of coca-cola contains 39g of sugar; if that's HFCS at 55% fructose, that's 22g of fructose. So that roughly agrees with the University of Virginia Healh System figure.

So an 8 oz can of soft drink will be about equal to 2 small apples.

[JackRiddler]

225. Except that you're getting the fructose from apples instead of carbonated water.

Is there a difference between a snack of roughage + vitamins + fructose and a can with only the sugar in a liquid that gets processed immediately? What do you think?

I get the impression some here wish to obfuscate around the issue of extra sugar in everything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

230. As far as the effect of the fructose, no, I don't think so

Roughage has an effect on your large intestine, but the fructose gets absorbed before that, in your small intestine. And what we're concerned with here is the amount, and maybe speed, of uptake of fructose into your bloodstream in the small intestine, and then how it's dealt with by the liver or other organs. The fructose, whether it comes from fruit or a soda, is in solution, mixed up with your gastric juices, and then goes into your small intestine, where the gut wall can absorb it.

So, no, no difference, I think. If a particular vitamin had an immediate effect on the digestion process, it might matter, but unless someone can point to a specific vitamin in fruit that changes the rate of absorption or processing of sugars, they're not relevant either.

"the issue of extra sugar in everything" - yes, that is important. As people have pointed out, typically, people eat 1 apple, and then probably don't have another for several hours, or even a day. If that's equivalent to half a can of soft drink, perhaps finishing the can several hours later, then the rate the body receives fructose isn't too bad. If someone's having 4 cans of coke a day, though, they're frequently having a large amount of fructose and glucose.

[JackRiddler]

245. Everything else aside, you noted the key difference.

Something like .5% of the population have 2 apples a day - and good for them.

Something like 80% have a softdrink can and 40% will have two, three, four... which is eight apples. (I doubt even one in ten thousand people have EVER eaten eight apples in a single day. Fruitpickers, maybe.)

So one big difference is that the apple is work.

---

Mind if I doubt that the fructose from the apple gets to the small intestine at the same rate as that from the can? Even if they're consumed over the same amount of time, one's going to trickle out of a mass in the stomach, the other's going to flow right in.

---

Another big difference is the stealth element. You may think you're eating a piece of bread, not a carrier for surplus fructose from America's industrial farms.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe back in the days when the can listed sugar instead of HFCS they meant glucose, not fructose.

---

I'd be happy to do that experiment. I'll eat nothing but eight apples a day and you have four cans of coke, and we see who drops dead first. (Won't be long for either, I suppose.)

[yawnmaster]

253. sugar before hfcs, generally, meant sucrose (which contains a fructose molecule in its structure)

also, once an apple gets to the stomach, assuming you chewed much at all, the enzymes in the stomach and the early portion of the small intestine will make that fructose as available as the soda fructose. Once in the bloodstream the body won't know where it came from.

[JonQ]

293. Seems then HFCS aren't the problem

merely the overconsumption of them. Which you could get, as that other poster mentioned, from fresh fruit.

If kids are drinking more coke than they are getting fruit then this comes down to the parents.

[JackRiddler]

356. Hardly the parents only!

If all the food you consume is suddenly full of this shit and you have to know to re-read the labels and search the shelves for anything that isn't HFCS-injected, then no, that's not on the consumer. It's on the food producers for changing their practices and keeping it as quiet as possible.

And it's on the industrial farming corporations for aggressively marketing the unncessary additive, lobbying against regulation, and paying for misleading propaganda campaigns on the TV.

And it's on the authorities, who should be educating the public about the fairly recent practice of adding HFCS to everything.

And it's on the authorities to regulate the use of this unncessary additive.

Therefore it's on US and millions of others to start by bringing this issue into discussion, and not to pooh-pooh the mere discussion of it with smug, moralistic accusations aimed only at parental irresponsibility.

If parents aren't doing enough to shield their children from crap food, it's still the children who pay the price. That's why labeling and regulation and education campaigns exist in the first place, and they do make a difference. This is society's problem.

In most supermarkets, especially outside big cities and specialty shops, you cannot find a brand of yogurt that isn't doused in HFCS.

Not so long ago, that was not the case. A day can come when it is no longer the case.

[Hannah Bell]

311. fiber affects the rate of digestion through the whole process. a meal containing

sugars only transits faster than one also including fiber, protein a/o fat, as a rule.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. Except that to get that much fructose from fruit you'd have to eat a

bushel of it every day, and (as another poster above mentioned) fruit has its own fiber to help in the digestion and elimination of excess sugars, unlike HFCS processed drinks and even many processed foods. Even if it is possible to actually consume an equal amount of fructose by eating fruit, most of it would process out of the body.

[yawnmaster]

255. I think its actually only 2 or 2.5 apples...

also I'm pretty sure the body does a good job of pulling soluble sugars from the food before you eliminate it.
Even when mixed with fiber most of it -would not- be processed out, most if not all would be absorbed by the intestines as soluble fructose. Only the fiber is poo'd out, sans fructose.

[kestrel91316]

170. Can you prove that HFCS is "loaded with mercury", lol???

I mean, I hate HFCS as much as and probably more than the next guy, but your statement is just BS.

We have plenty of reason to hate it without people dragging nonsense about heavy metals into the conversation.

[shireen]

176. here's a link

http://www.alternativehealthjournal.com/article/recent_study_finds_high_fructose_corn_syrup_contains_mercury/2658

but it does not cite the source of the study. :(

[kestrel91316]

181. I want to see evidence that has been peer-reviewed in a legitimate

scientific journal. Seriously. Alternative Health Journal may have noble intentions, but Nature it ain't.

[ElboRuum]

249. "I heard they injected the meat with hormones before they threw it!"

Yeah, I think I'm going to need a bit more legitimate a source before I buy the whole mercury business.

[shireen]

339. i agree

just wanted to point out that article. there were no sources cited, which is immediately cause for suspicion. that is the worst kind of science journalism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

283. It's a lie.

There was a legitimate study awhile ago that screened HFCS for mercury. Of all the samples, most contained no detectable samples. In a couple of samples, a trace amount of mercury was detected, and that was traced back to contaminated lime used in the refining process. The same process which is used for table sugar.

[immoderate]

24. There could be a difference...

I haven't seen the question addressed directly. You could be right. I'm wondering if fructose in fruit is metabolized differently because of other substances in the fruit.

I generally avoid HFCS. I find it hard to believe that fruit is bad for you, while refined sucrose is OK. :shrug:

--imm

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Fructose is fructose.

It's always metabolized the same way. The issue, it seems to me, is the higher amount of fructose consumed in things like sweet beverages vs. fruit.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. The danger of HFCS is the amount we are consuming

People might have the same problems with fruit intake if they sat down every morning for breakfast and ate 25 oranges, 13 bananas and a couple hundred strawberries.

[Javaman]

66. While this is true...

it's the fact that HFCS isn't just used as a sweetener.

It's also used as a preservative.

That is why it's in just about every process food out there.

Anything that has a shelf life of less than a few days, will have HFCS in it to extend that life.

That is why you will find it in bread, cereals, certain milks, various dairy products, etc. Of course I'm not even going to go into all the packaged bullshit out there.

There is a great book called, "de-constructing the Twinkie". Excellent read. It goes through each ingredient of the Twinkie and tells you where it comes from and why it's in the pastry. And if you haven't already read it, "fast food nation". It gives a great in depth level of information regarding HFCS and its uses.

Cheers!

[KansDem]

83. "That is why you will find it in bread,..."

Ain't that the truth!

Have you ever gone to the bread aisle of a standard grocery store and tried to find a loaf that didn't contain HFCS? It's nearly impossible!

I stopped drinking Coke in January, 1980, had haven't had a soft drink since (other than seltzer or club soda). I thought I was "kicking" the HFCS habit, but when you consider it's in just about everything else, you realize it's extremely difficult to avoid...

[FarCenter]

117. Sugar in general is a preservative -- that's why jams and jellies are "preserves"

Once the concentration of sugar is too high, organisms can't live in the food.

[Javaman]

149. While that's true...

you don't need to put "sugar" into everything. I don't eat 2500 calories a day of jam or preservatives.

HFCS is not always sweet either. there are none sweet varieties.

And as a result, it's over used as a preservative because it's very very cheap.

[jeff47]

156. Pectin is a gelling agent. The preservative in jams/jellies is sugar. nt

[Javaman]

158. I corrected myself. Please read new reply. nt

[jeff47]

189. Your edit still has problems

HFCS is always sweet. It's a syrup made primarily of glucose and fructose ('regular' corn syrup is almost all glucose). There is no possible way to make HFCS not be sweet, just like there's no way to make table sugar (sucrose) not be sweet.

You might be missing the sweetness due to the other flavors in whatever food you are talking about, or the HFCS on the ingredient list might have been consumed by the production of the food (such as eaten by yeast to make bread rise).

[Luminous Animal]

37. It isn't different but, until a few decades ago,

fructose wasn't added to cereal, bread, soft drinks, soups, water, salad dressing, ketchup, mustard, pickles, relish, soup, beans, crackers, jams, jelly, yogurt, applesauce, peanut butter, tomato sauces, bacon, hotdogs, cheese spreads... we are eating far more fructose than our bodies can handle.

[SpiralHawk]

48. It's vastly different. It's made from mutant GMO corn, and

it is INTENSELY CONCENTRATED.

So ignore reality and eat all of the HCFS crap you want. It's a free country (more or less). Just don't start whining like a Republicon when you develop a chronic disease...

[robdogbucky]

92. Not to pile on but

I have heard anecdotal evidence from credible sources that monitor such things that the GM corn used in both HFCS production and the production of snack foods like corn chips, have large concentrations of Depleted Uranium as well. This is what is done with the profitable elements of our agri-business's food production. Hard to believe, huh? In an environment of food for profit, not for people it is not only easy to believe, it is expected.

Glad I stopped drinking soda with HFCS and corn chips and other snacks with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, etc., many years ago.



Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[SpiralHawk]

101. Whoa Nelly ! And...to pile it on even deeper

I suspect, and I would wager a sack of deep-fried doughnuts, that Morgellons Disease is going to come upon the HFCS GMO consuming public like a WHAMA BAMA SLAMMA in the years ahead....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Morgellon's disease?

You mean that made up disease where people claim that they have bright blue fibers coming out of their skin?

:rofl:

[Mojorabbit]

186. The CDC is doing

a study on that "disease". It will be interesting to see what they find.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

201. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

They'll find out it's bullshit.

[SpiralHawk]

289. May you never contract Morgellons for it is real & unfunny in the extreme

may no one ever again contract it -- or be mocked by those without eyes to see...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

341. No, it's phony and hilarious in the extreme.

OK, maybe not hilarious in the extreme. But it is pretty fucking stupid.

[quakerboy]

110. Right

And the only difference between my friend eating an apple, core and all, and people taking a cyanide pill is in the amount consumed as well.

The only difference between me drinking a glass of water and that lady in california that died from drinking so much water for a radio contest is in the amount consumed.


Your "only difference" is a rather massive difference

[Marr]

165. What's the difference between one Twinky and twenty?

The only difference is the amount consumed.

:crazy:

[JackRiddler]

223. Is this an argument for injecting HFCS into every kind of processed food?

Because it's everywhere. People are constantly eating it thinking they're having bread or yogurt. That doesn't happen with the fructose in apples.

The reason for this is to dispense with surplus corn.

What does that have to do with nutrition?

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. You make a joke out of Childhood Diabetes and Obesity

by attacking fruit....

nuf said

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Yes, I love childhood diabetes and obesity.

And I eat kittens smothered in high fructose corn syrup for breakfast.

It's impossible to take anything useful out of this article because it doesn't cite the study it's talking about and it doesn't say anything about the *amount* of fructose consumed relative to a diet which is high in fruit. So until I either see the study or something that actually talks about the amount of fructose consumption, it's pretty much the same useless hysteria that we should all have come to expect by now from Murdoch's worthless fearmongering rags.

[Vinnie From Indy]

57. While I think you are wrong

I do enjoy your testiness sometimes and the kittens line had me laughing out loud. Cheers! (non-HFCS laden beverage of course)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

63. Me? Testy?

:toast: :evilgrin:

[Guilded Lilly]

30. Fruit juice is typically loaded

with about the same natural sugars as ten pieces of that fruit. Concentrate is the worst.
And YES, drinking a full glass of orange juice or grape juice , etc, is horrible for the blood sugar levels of diabetics.

Suck on a piece of fruit if you want the plusses, in moderation and really, keep the bottled juices and even fresh squeezed juices out of your diabetic concious diet.

[tkmorris]

38. You are deliberately being obtuse

A common malady for some.

[yawnmaster]

258. even worse, he is being acutely obtuse. eom

[Javaman]

65. I like your style. :)

LOL

Some people don't understand the high arts anymore.

:evilgrin:

[progressoid]

79. Wow, what a Glenn Beckian statement.

Only two sentences to distort and denigrate the article. Woo hoo!

[valerief]

130. Yeah, but the glucose in the fruit will tell you when you're full. HFCS foodstuffs don't have that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. HFCS has the same amount of glucose as fruit.

:shrug:

[valerief]

229. Of course, you'd say that, given your name!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

240. Why do you think I picked the name?

I love these threads.

You're willing to look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Many common fruits on the shelves contain ~55% fructose, ~45% glucose, the same as HFCS. It varies a bit from fruit to fruit, some less, some more.

The name "fructose" is contains the root "fruct" (from the Latin fructus, meaning fruit), with the "-ose" suffix meaning it's a sugar. It's fruit sugar. Corn's a fruit, it contain's fructose like any other fruit.

[valerief]

357. We don't have corn anymore. We have genetically modified corn. Cornstuff, as it were. nt

[berni_mccoy]

142. HFCS does not equal the Fructose found in Fruit

HFCS is highly refined. It goes straight into the blood stream at the mouth, not from the stomach.

Fructose in Fruit has to be released from the plant's starch inside the stomach.

There is indeed a difference as anyone with type-1 who monitors their real-time blood sugar after eating.

[jeff47]

160. You need to learn some basic biology

HFCS is absorbed in the small intestine, just like fructose, glucose, and almost everything else we eat.

The fructose in fruit is freely available - that's why fruit tastes sweet. If it was bound up as starch, fruit would taste like potatoes or other starchy foods.

What causes a spike in blood sugar after HFCS is just the total quantity of sugar consumed in one short burst. It takes longer to eat & digest 2 apples than to drink & digest 1 coke. But they have roughly the same quantity of fructose. You would experience the same blood sugar spike if you consumed a coke that was sweetened with sucrose instead of HFCS.

[berni_mccoy]

215. Seems like basic biology is all you know

Monosacharides can and are digested directly into the bloodstream from both the mouth and stomach. http://www.nutritionnook.com/carbohydrates.php

[ElboRuum]

221. Um...

While it may be correct, the link you provide is a little shady looking. I can't seem to find any authorship credentials. Do you have another source available to corroborate?

[berni_mccoy]

254. It's a well-known fact among type-1s and occurs in just about every type-1 book out there

Here's a discussion among EMTs regarding the topic: http://www.emtlife.com/archive/index.php/t-5184.html

[ElboRuum]

287. Much obliged for the link... n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

224. there's a difference betweeen 'digest' and 'absorb'

'digest' means 'break down into the molecules that are absorbable'. From your link:

"Digestion of carbohydrates takes place in several organs as the food passes through the gastrointestinal tract - in the mouth, stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Sugars and starches get broken down into glucose primarily and this takes place mostly in the small intestine, but to some extent in the other organs too. Glucose, galactose and fructose are absorbed in the small intestine, although a small amount of glucose is absorbed through the mouth."

So a small amount of the glucose in HFCS can be absorbed in the mouth; but the fructose (which is the molecule of concern here) isn't absorbed until the small intestine. And starch doesn't break down into fructose, but into glucose. See http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Carbohydrates.html#starches

[berni_mccoy]

238. The impact on blood sugar is clear. 4g of pure fructose in the mouth

is enough to raise the blood glucose of one my sons between 10-20 mg/dL within 10 minutes.

It would take much longer for that to go all the way to the small intestine.

[yawnmaster]

261. need another piece of information...

If that 0.4g of pure fructose is swallowed immediately, what are the blood levels in 10 minutes...higher or lower than 10-20 mg?

[muriel_volestrangler]

288. No, liquids gets to the small intestine in about that time

eg

This test is similar to a barium meal but aims to look for problems in the small intestine. Therefore, you drink the barium liquid but then need to wait 10-15 minutes before any x-rays are taken.

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Barium-Swallow-/-Meal-/-Follow-Through.htm

And here's an excerpt from a book on diabetes:

Once the food is in the small intestine, it will be
broken down even more by digestive enzymes
from the pancreas and suspended in bile produced
by the liver. If you eat sugar (for example,
if you have hypoglycaemia, see page 60) it cannot
be absorbed into the blood until it has
entered the small intestine. A study on adults
indicates that glucose cannot be absorbed from
the mouth (oral cavity) 321 or from the stomach.
277 In this sense the emptying rate of the
stomach will have a considerable impact on
how quickly the sugar you eat enters the bloodstream
and increases your blood glucose level
(see page 203).

http://www.class.co.uk/downloads/93cc7badccd7bbb578846ba5946f1dc8.pdf

[berni_mccoy]

296. I'm sorry you are wrong.

Sugar is absorbed through the gums and cheeks, as well as in the stomach. Carbs are absorbed as a priority over all other foods.

If it was only absorbed in the small intestine and a high-protein meal had just been eaten, then it would take far longer for pure glucose to absorb. But it doesn't, it still only takes 10 minutes for it to impact blood glucose.

You can also see the EMT site I linked below.

[muriel_volestrangler]

308. Some studies say glucose cannot be absorbed, some say it can; none for fructose

that I can find.

One saying glucose can't:

The efficacy of instant glucose as a potential treatment for hypoglycemia was studied in normal volunteers, with therapeutic doses administered in the buccal cavity. 2-Tritiated glucose (50 µCi) was homogenized into each dose before use. Mean blood glucose and serum insulin concentrations were unaltered by instant glucose. Glucose absorption was less than 0.05 mg at any time, and total glucose absorbed was less than 0.1 mg. For comparison purposes, volunteers swallowed a dose of instant glucose. Approximately 88% of the dose was absorbed during a 30-minute interval. Blood glucose and insulin levels increased. Instant glucose appears to be of therapeutic value only if swallowed by fully conscious, hypoglycemic patients. It should not benefit unconscious patients because of its poor absorption through the buccal mucosa.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/240/15/1611

But several of your EMTs at that link say it can. And so does this abstract, but I can't see all of it:

1. Certain sugars were transported across the buccal mucosa by a carrier-mediated mechanism. 2. The metabolic loss of sugars from the mouth in a 5 min test period was negligible. 3. The buccal mucosal transport process was stereospecific for D-glucose and L-arabinose. 4. The absorption of D-glucose, galactose and 3-O-methyl-D-glucose was at least partly dependent on the presence of sodium ions in the luminal fluid. 5. The transport of D-glucose, was inhibited by galactose and 3-O-methyl-D-glucose, suggesting at least one common carrier system.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/954358

However, that's all about glucose absorption; fructose is absorbed in the intestine, and by a different way. In fact, fructose can be improperly absorbed if glucose is not present:

Only D-glucose and D-galactose are actively absorbed in the human small intestine. D-fructose is not actively absorbed, but has a rate of diffusion greater than would be expected by passive diffusion. The sodium dependent glucose transporter, SGLT1, is responsible for the active transport of glucose or galactose with an equimolar amount of sodium against a concentration gradient into the cytoplasm of the enterocyte. Fructose is taken up by facilitated transport by the glucose transporter 5 (GLUT5). Glucose is pumped out of the enterocyte into the intracellular space by the glucose transporter 2 (GLUT2) (70). The complete mechanism of fructose absorption in the human intestine is not understood. When fructose is given alone in solution, 40-80% of subjects have malabsorption, and some subjects can absorb less than 15g fructose. Flatulence and diarrhoea are common if doses of fructose over 50g are given by mouth. However, if fructose is given in combination with glucose or starch, fructose is completely absorbed, even in subjects who malabsorb fructose alone (71). Since fructose rarely occurs in the diet in the absence of other carbohydrates, fructose malabsorption is really only a problem for studies involving oral fructose loads.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/w8079e/w8079e0k.htm

I can find nothing at all claiming fructose is absorbed in the mouth.

Are you sure you give pure fructose, and not pure glucose? My mother is diabetic (type 2), and she has glucose tablets for a hypoglycemic episode, not fructose.

[Hannah Bell]

309. 10-15 to *reach* the small intestine. In real life, rate of stomach emptying depends on meal mix.

Sugars appear in the bloodstream first.


Barium follow through

This test is similar to a barium meal but aims to look for problems
in the small intestine. Therefore, you drink the barium liquid but then need to wait 10-15 minutes before any x-rays are taken. This allows time for the barium to reach the small intestine.

You may then have an x-ray ****every 30 minutes or so until the barium is seen to have gone through all the small intestine**** and reached the large intestine (colon).

[muriel_volestrangler]

314. Yes, and since we're talkign about sugars, that indicates this is how the majority of the sugar

(whichever one it really is - glucose or fructose) is entering the bloodstream. I suppose that if it's solid glucose or fructose, and is only dissolving slowly in the mouth (because it's not being chewed), that could account for the delay; but if it's already dissolved (eg in a gel), then you'd expect a quicker reaction than 10 minutes.

[Hannah Bell]

324. i was talking about fats,most of which are absorbed more slowly than sugars,

& most of which aren't absorbed directly into the bloodstream, but undergo breakdown & reconstitution before being absorbed into the blood as lipoproteins.

glucose is absorbed directly into the blood through the intestinal lumen. digestion of starches into glucose starts in the mouth (amylases). rise in blood sugar on glucose tolerance tests (empty stomach, no other foods) shows up within 10" & continues rising for ~an hour (normal curve).

[jeff47]

248. If you'd like...

If you'd like, I could put up a web site called "NutritionNookSpot.com" and claim HFCS has all sorts of miraculous healing powers. If you pour it on a severed limb, the limb will immediately grow back!!!

Just 'cause it's on a web site and you want to believe it, doesn't mean it's actually true.

[berni_mccoy]

251. Sorry, i can't link all my type-1 diabetes management books for you. They aren't on the web.

[yawnmaster]

259. most people swallow their soda with little time in the mouth...

although you are correct that mono sugars can be absorbed through the tissues of the mouth, you'd have to hold that soda in your mouth for probably an hour or more, per sip. It would therefore take you much longer to drink a coke that way. The mouth (nor stomach) just does not have the vascular surface area as does the small intestines. By far the most absorption of sugars occurs there, in the s.i..



edited to remove a word

[Chemical Bill]

199. My blood pressure dropped when I cut back on fruit.

My acupuncturist told me to cut from 4-5 servings of fruit a day to 1. My BP went from 140/90 to 132/83 in a matter of days.

Bill

[stray cat]

303. I hope you forgot the sarcasm thingy?

[Hannah Bell]

19. You might consider that the subjects of this study were obese, & that table sugar = half fructose.

you might also read this, from another report on the study:

"The news may be worse. Stanhope says that preliminary data from new studies show that regular sugar and high-fructose corn syrup each seem to have the same effect as fructose alone -- even though both are only about half fructose and half glucose (normal corn syrup is 100% glucose)."

http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070625/fructose-sugars-dark-side


i.e. sugar, fructose, & hfcs have "the same" effect when obese people eat 25% of their calories in these forms.

well, slap me silly, eating 1/4 of your calories as refined sweetners messes with your metabolism/body fat distribution/insulin sensitivity/cholesterol & TG levels--esp. when you're already obese. this is not news.

at least so far as the media reports go, it seems there's less here that the headline suggests.

i'd like to see the study itself.

so far i don't see any proof of anything causing childhood DM. (actually, "childhood diabetes" used to mean type 1 insulin dependent diabetes, & it's highly unlikely HFCS has anything to do with it, since it's been known for most of history, e.g. in ancient eygypt).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Glucose is most certainly not half fructose.

Glucose and fructose are completely different substances. They are frequently combined in things like corn syrup, but they are most definitely not the same thing. They aren't even metabolized the same way.

[Hannah Bell]

25. i meant sucrose, table sugar. the article i linked compared "sugar" w/ others

& i wrote "glucose" because that's the sugar i'm used to writing at work.

brain fart.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Ah, now I get it. No worries. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Here's the report of that - seems to confirm the preliminary result, for TG levels

DESIGN: Thirty-four men and women consumed 3 isocaloric meals with either sucrose- or HFCS-sweetened beverages, and blood samples were collected over 24 h. Eight of the male subjects were also studied when fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverages were consumed.

RESULTS: In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and TG profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed. Postprandial TG excursions after HFCS or sucrose were larger in men than in women. In the men in whom the effects of 4 sweeteners were compared, the 24-h glucose and insulin responses induced by HFCS and sucrose were intermediate between the lower responses during consumption of fructose and the higher responses during glucose. Unexpectedly, postprandial TG profiles after HFCS or sucrose were not intermediate but comparably high as after pure fructose.

CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects. In male subjects, short-term consumption of sucrose and HFCS resulted in postprandial TG responses comparable to those induced by fructose.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469239

The main comparison that seems useful to me is between HFCS and sucrose - those are the alternative ('natural') sweeteners that companies (or individuals) consider using. And there seems to be little difference, in the tests so far. If the experiment in the OP were repeated with HFCS and sucrose, the results would be interesting. (Would there be a way of doing it with 'sugar as found in fruit'? As I understand it, fruit juice is typically a mixture of sucrose, fructose and glucose, though there are plainly DUers would say that the existence of fibre etc. in the fruit juice makes a difference. I'd like a proper basis for that claim before paying much attention to it, myself).

[stray cat]

304. The study doesn't come close to trying to promote that idea

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. That's fructose specifically, not just HFCS.

Refined white sugar (sucrose) is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose (for reference, HFCS is about 55% glucose).

[apocalypsehow]

33. Does this mean no more Candy Corn for Christmas?

:cry:

[AllyCat]

81. It was all made in 1911. It just gets recycled

[iamtechus]

40. Foods With HFCS

Go here for a list of HFCS containing foods

[jtrockville]

124. Not a complete list, but a good start.

Thanks for posting this. I have been trying to eliminate all processed foods from our household (which eliminates HFCS among many other things). While I haven't been 100% successful, I have made very good progress.

Michael Pollan's advice was good:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetables."

I don't consider many of the items on that list to be "food".

[kestrel91316]

171. Pollan is right. And anything that has on its ingredients list things your

grandmother wouldn't recognize as food, isn't food.

I am on a major kick with the whole grains, fresh produce, organic local dairy products diet, with minimal meat. I really need to stick with it. My grandmother wound up a skinny borderline diabetic, but she enjoyed a daily soda and plenty of juice, and of course other processed foods.

Ain't gonna let that happen to me!

[jtrockville]

183. Been doing the same here. It's not that hard.

I do need to allow exceptions - sometimes I just don't have the time to make sure we have "whole food" meals 100% of the time. But that doesn't stop me from doing it when possible. After a few years of changing our habits, we find ourselves eating "food" more often than not.

And yes, we're eating much less meat. I've switched to only buying meat at farm markets, from grass-fed animals raised on local farms that allow the animals to graze. (like Gunpowder Bison: http://www.gunpowderbison.com/). It's more expensive, and therefore self-limiting.

LocalHarvest.org is a good resource: http://www.localharvest.org

[cmd]

203. If I took all that stuff out of my pantry, the cupboard would be bare

I think I can cut out everything but Miracle Whip and Heinz catsup. First I have to finish the Coke that I have in my hand.

[MISSDem]

366. You can get delicious replacements for both of those:

Veganaise and organic ketchup (even Kroger has a store brand of the ketchup).

[The Gunslinger]

315. Damn..It might be easier to have a list of what does not contain it.

[malaise]

41. Look out for the Tea Party protesters

They'll defend king corn fructose. They'll demand the freedom to let their kids have diabetes.

[KansDem]

87. "They'll demand the freedom to let their kids have diabetes."

They be out en masse screaming, "We want our country diseases back!"

[malaise]

91. Yes indeed

:D

[dysfunctional press]

43. "Even some fruit drinks that sound healthy contain fructose."

doesn't ALL fruit juice contain fructose?

[fasttense]

44. I heard about this study and another study

that indicated that HFCS could actually leave you feeling hungrier than with other sugars. So, I tried to get it out of my diet. I found some interesting things. Diet salad dressings have it. My favorite mayo and ketchup don't have it. Pre-packaged pasta sauces have it. Even some breads have it.

Looking for HFCS on the label makes grocery shopping very difficult.

[mrs_p]

45. HFCS is bad stuff indeed

BUT science never "proves" anything, which is grilled into our (scientist's) heads from the beginning of our education. anyone claiming such is immediately suspect. though i see that the actual researcher uses the word "evidence" - it's the journalist that needs a lesson....

[SpiralHawk]

47. Avoid that crap like the plague -- especially since they use Mutant corn (GMO)

Sick stuff...

[Mari333]

49. Ive been taking a break from DU but this topic really concerns me

I have watched my entire family become obese, except for me. my mom, sisters, brothers, all obese. and I read labels, they dont.
I sent this link to all of them, and to my son and his wife . READ THE LABELS. if it has HFCS, dont buy it. its poison.

[Algorem]

50. vital organs want that comfy blubber around them

[leveymg]

51. HFCS + Playstation = Chronic Illness/Early Death

Big Pharma is harvesting the American population. This is a big part of how they do it.

[L0oniX]

85. Hey ...lay off muh PS3 damn it.

:evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

52. We avoid it like poison. Not only because of the heath reasons

but I myself can not stand the flavor profile, and especially the strange things it does to baked goods. It is diabetes. So no thanks.

[Strelnikov_]

53. "has increasingly been used" . . . "Even some fruit drinks"

This crap is in nearly everything today.

[NikolaC]

58. K&R n/t

[tandot]

59. I don't buy anything with HFCS and also limit high-sugar foods in general

(and also trans fats). I not only read the nutrition labels, but also the ingredient list of things I buy. Highly processed food is bad for you anyways.

The only time I can't avoid it is Halloween. However, we mostly give that candy away anyways.

[azul]

60. Curious to see if this evidence has been presented before and suppressed

because of the Alar laws in many states. Disparagement of a food industry or product, even if it causes harm, has penalties. Hence publication in UK.

Corporate interests over consumer's has to have a chilling effect on research, and media truthfulness.

[Tailormyst]

61. As a poorer person I find feeding a family without using it to be extremely difficult.

It really limits affordable choices.

[Lyric]

62. Yep. And since we low-income people have zero political power,

we have to wait for everyone else to start REALLY raising hell before affordable alternatives become mainstream. Not likely anytime soon.

[Hekate]

137. That's very understandable, but shortly someone will tell you shop in organic farmer's markets...

... unaware that that is not an affordable choice for many. :eyes:

About the only thing I can recommend is to do as much "from scratch" cooking as you have time for (I assume both of you are working full time and time is in short supply), taking the usual steps of using a crock pot/slow cooker so meals are ready by the time everyone arrives home starving.

I say this in full recollection of how many times I swung by the cheap fast fried chicken place on my way home after work and after picking up the kids at daycare, back in the day. Oy.

Meanwhile, awareness and growing sentiment will eventually make a difference -- perhaps as long as it took for tobacco, so I'm not holding my breath.

I do think though that the more we as customers ask our grocers to start carrying products without HFCS the better it will be. Trader Joe's, without making a big deal out of it, is now carrying a lot of prepared items that don't have that on their labels -- I know because I'm now reading labels.

Best of luck.

Hekate

[Tailormyst]

147. That's what I do now, as much as I can

But it's really hard to do, especially as a single working parent. My crock pot is my friend and I cook like my Irish Nanas did....meat, potatoes, carrots, onions, toss in water and cook. I've changed much of the way we eat but I have teenage boys and stopping them from eating the junk is not easy. Even something as simple as ketchup or spagetti sauce, is full of the crap. When emergencies come up, as they always do, and I have to stretch 20 bucks until the next paycheck, its mac n cheese, hot dogs, ramen, potatos, carrots, rice and spagetti.

[Hekate]

152. Don't I know it

Those days are long gone for me, but I never forget. Here's for you :hug:

Hekate

[MISSDem]

367. Kroger is carrying some of these items that you mentioned

made by companies that do it healthier. Look for Amy's brand mac 'n cheese, Kroger brand organic ketchup and spaghetti sauces.

[kestrel91316]

174. Buying fresh produce at our local ethnic supermarkets is REALLY CHEAP.

No one is suggesting that poor people shop at the most expensive places in town.

Why do people act like there are only two dietary choices in life: endless processed crap and fast food, versus high-end organic produce out of season at Whole Paycheck??? Sheesh. The black and white thinking gets old.

[MISSDem]

368. If people demand it the regular grocery stores will carry what they want.

The Kroger (I know I sound like I work for Kroger but I don't)I shop at has added what they call the "healthy corner". They carry organic produce and a bunch of other healthy items. Most are no or not much more expensive then regular stuff and when you consider it is your health we are talking about, well...The customer is always right but they have to ask for what they want.

[kestrel91316]

175. Aren't you the one who bit my head off once for suggesting that very thing?

Cooking from scratch using a crockpot to save time, for busy working people with little time or money????

[defendandprotect]

64. The garbage in our processed foods - wow!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. They must have read the post I wrote a month ago.

[Vidar]

70. K&R.

[ensho]

71. kicking for america's kids - they don't deserve to have diabetes

nt

[rucky]

74. Where's our resident shill?

[Echo In Light]

76. Ha..no shit. Was figuring he'd have umpteen posts in this thread

[Hekate]

153. Maybe later in the day. It should provide some amusement, anyway. nt

[distantearlywarning]

75. I am extremely sensitive to HFCS

I don't digest it well and it makes me quite ill.

Although it has been a royal PITA trying to eat without consuming it, I feel so much better for it.

Since removing HFCS from my diet, I have decreased my IBS symptoms by 90% and lost close to 25 lbs.

Fuck the corn syrup industries.

[Lorien]

104. Me too

I developed severe hypoglycemia as a young adult, and I eventually discovered that HFCS was the trigger. Headaches, dizziness, extreme sweating, loss of motor skills, sudden fever...the stuff nearly wrecks me if I accidentally consume it. No other sugar does that to me, so I'm sick of hearing the corporate shills insist that it's exactly the same as naturally occurring sugars.

[LeftHander]

77. Finally cheap sweetener getting just desserts....

lol

pun intended.

[tonysam]

78. More crackpot "science" trying to justify prejudice against

people who don't conform to an anorexic body size ideal.

[AllyCat]

82. Kids with diabetes is not trying to justify an anorexic body style.

Obesity is a health concern and that is the point made in the article. There is not one thing in here that says anything about all of us looking like models. Diabetes is more likely the more someone weighs. Or is that junk science too?

[dustbunnie]

120. Lol, what? You sound like someone who's overweight and bitter about it.

That's the worst way to live.

The OP contains interesting info for those who care about their health - obesity contributes to ill health.

Nobody's picking on you because scientists investigate and publish the content of what we eat and what it does to us. If you're overweight, enjoy eating sweets, then good on ya. Don't open threads like this and you can remain blissfully happy in not knowing what's happening to your liver, gall bladder, heart and arteries.

[Bunny]

80. Maybe this will get through to the 'calories in/calories out' people

that things aren't always as concrete as they'd like them to be.

[L0oniX]

86. The "yes you can get something from nothing" over weight crowd?

[Stephanie]

106. Both groups ate the same calories, and both gained weight

The difference is the group on HFCS instead of regular sugar accumulated more fat cells around their organs and were more prone to diabetes.

[FarCenter]

135. They were drinking glucose or fructose sweetened drinks with 25% of maintenance calories

in addition to their normal diet during the experimental study. I don't believe that there are any commecial 100% glucose-sweetened drinks, since glucose does not taste sweet enough to be acceptable to consumers.

"Study design. This was a double-blinded parallel arm study that used matched
subjects and consisted of 3 phases (Table 1): (a) a 2-week inpatient baseline
period during which subjects consumed an energy-balanced diet; (b) an
8-week outpatient intervention period during which subjects consumed
either fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of daily energy
requirements along with their usual ad libitum diet; and (c) a 2-week inpatient
intervention period during which subjects consumed fructose- or glucose-
sweetened beverages providing 25% of daily energy requirements with
an energy-balanced diet. The inpatient periods allowed comparisons of the
high-fructose and glucose diets under well-controlled metabolic conditions.
However, sugar-sweetened beverages are typically consumed as part of an ad
libitum diet that is likely to contain more energy than the inpatient diet and
have the potential to promote weight gain. Therefore, the purpose of the
8-week outpatient period was to compare the effects of consumption of fructose
or glucose along with ad libitum diet on BW gain and composition."

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. It wasn't HFCS versus 'regular sugar', though - it was pure fructose versus pure glucose

'R sugar' is sucrose, which is made up of half glucose and half fructose (quickly broken down by intestinal ezymes to its constiuent simple sugars, and absorbed through the gut as them - see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/571354/sucrase).

High Fructose Corn Syrup is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, and already chemically separate, so available for immediate abosorption by the gut.

This test does not tell us if HFCS is significantly worse than sucrose.

[Stephanie]

342. Ok thanks

Regardless, the calories-in calories-out crowd is still correct. Both groups gained weight due to the additional calories.

[Ms. Toad]

323. It wasn't HFCS - it was fructose.

Fructose is a component of many sugars - it is not exclusive to HFCS.

>>To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose.<<

[dustbunnie]

131. No. The argument still remains the same.

The trouble with HFCS is that because it's in everything, it contributes to "hidden" calories. Also, people have become desensitized to overeating and drinking, and guzzle down mass quantities of the stuff. So it's still a function of ingesting way more calories than you burn off.

[yellowcanine]

89. HFCS no better or worse than table sugar (sucrose). Both are on average half fructose.

You can argue that HFCS is worse because it is cheaper than sucrose and thus the poor people drink more sugared drinks containing HFCS than they would if sucrose were used. However, gram for gram, sucrose is just as bad as HFCS.

[Lorien]

97. Did you actually read the study?

As a person with severe hypoglycemia, I can tell you that HFCS is one hell of a lot worse than sucrose. It effects blood sugar in a unique, entirely UNnatural way.

[yellowcanine]

107. The study was about the effect of fructose. Sucrose is half fructrose. It is broken into fructose

and glucose in your stomach and small intestine. So when you eat sucrose what goes into your blood stream is half fructose and half glucose - about the same as what happens when you eat HFCS, on average. Once the fructose is in your blood stream your body does not care whether it came from HFCS or sucrose. The level of fructose in HFCS varies from about 42% fructose (baked goods, etc.) to 55% fructose (soft drinks). You are kidding yourself if you think eating sucrose isn't as bad for you as eating HFCS. Chemically they are virtually the same.

[cascadiance]

99. Costco, are you listening? Can you restock Mexican Coke?...

That or stock Jones Soda colas or the like.

You dropped Coca Cola brands due to the "price war", but many of us won't touch Pepsi or Coca Cola mainstream drinks that are infused with HFCS. It isn't a cost issue.

[Lorien]

100. Bring out DU's armchair expert science deniers

The corporations that produce HFCS say that it's the same as naturally occurring sugars, just as they insist NutraSweet and Splenda are safe because their internal tests say it is. Anyone who has had severe reactions to this crap knows all too well that these lab created products are harmful to the human body. But keep on toeing the corporate line; they depend on citizen foot soldiers to keep that garbage on the shelves.

[Kingofalldems]

102. It's all a hoax, they will scream.

Perpetrated by commies.

[jeff47]

166. Actually, if you look over the thread...

...you'll find far more of the "ALL CHEMICALS ARE EVIL!!!!!!" crowd.

The study doesn't back up the headline, as I said in a post below.

[kestrel91316]

177. Tell me about that damned Nutrasweet. It gave me VPC's and sent me

to the ER once. Took me years to figure out that was why my heart had become a bit problematic. Now that I use only honey, sugar, and very rarely Splenda, I don't have any more rats jumping around in my chest (which is what it feels like to have VPC's).

[lightningandsnow]

105. Bleh. I wish they'd get that shit out of food.

I'm pro size acceptance, but I'm also pro-health.

[Kingofalldems]

108. The emails! It's all a hoax!

They sent each other emails, therefore they are all lying!

[FarCenter]

109. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose -- Cane sugar is 50% fuctose, 50% glucose

Very little "sugar" that you eat is 100% glucose.

Table 1 of the wiki article on Fructose has the fructose to glucose ratio of some common foods and "sugars".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose

[riverbendviewgal]

111. Is sugar and all the other sweeteners our SOMA?

Notice how placated and rewarded we all feel when eating the foods with this sweeteners in them?

Remember all the jobs that will be lost if people stop eating this killer foods.

Availability of food and water will be the next crisis for America.

[Chimichurri]

112. It's very difficult to find foods without it. Buying bread is a tedius task

...

food shopping in general has become an exercise in patience.

[FarCenter]

119. Just by the bread with very little sugar in it

Whether it is sweetened with 42% HFCS used in baking or with cane or beet sugar doesn't really make much difference in the ratio of fructose and glucose.

What will make a difference is the proportion of the total carbohydrates to sugar. Carbohydrates are broken down by the digestive system to glucose.

So a high ratio of total carbs to sugar means that the bread will give your body a high ratio of glucose to fructose.

In particular, don't buy sweetened breads, rolls, etc. Get whole grain breads without much sugar.

[jtrockville]

128. Make your own bread. Jacques Pepin's recipe is really quick/easy.

The bread recipe starts at 1:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP27HxEzdK8

[MISSDem]

260. Buy Ezekiel 4:9 bread.

No sugar, flour or HFCS. And it is so good!!! Made by Food For Life.

[MISSDem]

369. Buy bread made by Food For Life bakeries. Problem solved.

One of theirs is Ezekiel 4:9

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Well, duh.

Too much sugar causes diabetes. Who would have figured.

[Zodiak]

125. I cannot stand science journalists

They throw around words like "prove" when they should know that science does not PROVE ANYTHING!

Now a bunch of people are going to think that science is all about "proof", and when a real big issue like global warming comes up, they demand the same "proof" that these articles bandy around carelessly.

Science doesn't prove anything....they test hypotheses and determine if these hypotheses are supported or not.

The appropriate wording for this article should be "scientists show how HFCS damages your health". "Proof" is a big word that should be left to mathematics.

Science journalists also confuse the terms "hypothesis" and "theory", and as a result, people get the wrong notion when some jackoff critic says "evolution is just a theory". Nevermind that a "theory" doesn't rise to that level until the support for it is overwhelming.

A pet peeve of mine. We should be training science journalists better than this.

[onehandle]

129. It's not so good for adults either. nt

[librechik]

134. my husband scoffed at me for years about this

then he saw a lecture on the Research Channel about Fructose metabolism and changed his mind completely. That was about a month ago and he says he's lost 7 lbs since then!

(me? still struggling to lose, even though I quit eating HFCS products years ago--still haven't conquered my addiction to fried foods! It's always something, isn't it?)

[bvar22]

140. Probably just a coincidence,

..but commercial Bee Keepers switched to Corn Syrup to feed their bees in the 80s.
Now their bees are packing up and leaving (CCD).

Most commercial honey sold on the store shelves and on the roadsides IS reprocessed Corn Syrup.
Honey Bees do NOT naturally forage on corn.

There are those who say that HFCS and sugar and honey are all the same thing, and thats OK.
They can eat all the HFCS they want.
But we don't feed that crap to our bees, and we don't eat it ourselves.

[Gormy Cuss]

141. Fructose, not just HFCS.

Abstract (link at Treasonous Bastard's post)

Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance. To assess the relative effects of these dietary sugars during sustained consumption in humans, overweight and obese subjects consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. Fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations increased by approximately 10% during 10 weeks of glucose consumption but not after fructose consumption. In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and the 23-hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle–triglyceride and –cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption. In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. These data suggest that dietary fructose specifically increases DNL, promotes dyslipidemia, decreases insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight/obese adults.

It was a study of differences based on glucose (in food often from a corn-based source) vs. fructose (whether sucrose or HFCS)consumption.

This study did not look at whether there were differences between sucrose and HFCS consumption.

[berni_mccoy]

143. Just to CLARIFY: The term Childhood Diabetes here is referring to Type-2 onset in children

NOT type-1. That is the real problem with foods that contain HFCS, that they trigger the metabolic changes that typically only occur in older people who develop type-2 as part of aging.

Type-1 is Juveniel Diabetes, and is typically what children suffer from. It's an auto-immune disorder that attacks the pancreas and has nothing to do with diet. This is by far the most prevalent form of diabetes in children.

[jeff47]

154. The results do not back up the headline.

Unfortunately, science education in our country is terrible. Otherwise, such a headline would never be written.

The underlying study gave 1 group fructose, and 1 group glucose. Neither group was given HFCS. In addition, the test subjects were already obese, which means we can't say anything about fructose causing obesity - they were already there. This would be like claiming breathing causes obesity because obese people breathe.

The real shame here is the reaction from the folks reading the story. The ones talking about "mexican" coke or other things sweetened with sugar instead of HFCS never learned that sucrose (aka sugar) is 1 glucose molecule attached to 1 fructose molecule. And those 2 molecules are broken apart very quickly and very efficiently. If it's fructose you're trying to avoid, sugar isn't the way to go.

Then there's also all the people that don't seem to know that 'fructose' is also known as 'fruit sugar'. It's in tons of 'healthy' foods like....fruit! A couple of the sweeter apples will give you as much fructose as a coke.

Lastly:
"Fructose bypasses the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of abnormal reactions, including the disruption of mechanisms that instruct the body whether to burn or store fat."

MASSIVE facepalm. Glucose arrives 'intact' at the liver too. Both fructose and glucose are simple sugars that are consumed by our cells. They are not supposed to be broken down by our digestive tract - they're the intended result of digestion!

In the liver, glucose is either put directly into the blood stream, or it's converted into a molecule called Glycogen that is used as short-term energy storage. That glycogen is broken back down into glucose as needed to maintain a relatively consistent blood sugar level. I'd hazard a guess that fructose is released by the liver over glucose, since the liver has a glucose-storage mechanism inside it. But that would require additional experiments to confirm.

This study provides interesting data on how fructose is metabolized vs. how glucose is metabolized in people who are already obese. We can not extrapolate from that information anything about obesity or HFCS because that's not what the experiment was designed to study. Follow-on experiments could use the data from this experiment to test that out.

[dustbunnie]

163. What an excellent post. You expressed it very well, and concisely, for the non-science types.

Thanks! :)

[shireen]

179. thanks ...

the condition of science writing in the media has declined significantly. Some really good science writers have been let go from newspapers and other media due to 'cutbacks'. I felt a bit suspicious while reading the article but did not have the background to know better. However, a good and qualified science writer would have interpreted the study properly and wrote an accurate article.

[varelse]

191. Such a headline wasn't written

except by the OP.

The actual headline of the article is "Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener".

This study provides interesting data on how fructose is metabolized vs. how glucose is metabolized in people who are already obese. We can not extrapolate from that information anything about obesity or HFCS because that's not what the experiment was designed to study. Follow-on experiments could use the data from this experiment to test that out.

I can find no mention of the original state of the volunteers in the study in that article. Did you find the published study somewhere? It'd be very helpful to have the original document, if it is accessible.

[dustbunnie]

195. Here it is. The poster was correct in that the subjects were older, obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/

[varelse]

270. Thank you for the link :)

I'd much rather read the published research than an article written about the results - thank you for finding it for me :)

[dustbunnie]

290. No prob. One of the comments below the article had it.

:)

I'd rather see the source too and become more and more skeptical of the way these articles sensationalize scientific findings every day.

[Hannah Bell]

318. also note: glucose group = 15 people, fructose grp = 17.

"Subjects then began an 8-week outpatient intervention and consumed either fructose- (n = 17) or glucose-sweetened (n = 15) beverages at 25% of energy requirements with self-selected ad libitum diets."


They eat whatever they want, PLUS sugar beverages containing 25% of their energy requirements: ad-lib diet PLUS.

It's an overfeeding experiment. It's like if you were overweight, & normally ate 2000 calories, they're feeding you 500 extra calories.

I don't see any relevance to childhood obesity at all.

Small subject groups, self-reporting of intake during the 8 weeks of outpatient study, 3 different feeding periods -- it's kind of a dumb study.

[muriel_volestrangler]

219. If it's any consolation, it's a British article

Not much consolation for me about the state of British science writing, of course. :(

[Joe Chi Minh]

231. Isn't this about fructose as sold in the US, i.e. having been genetically modifed

somewhere in the process of its production?

[jeff47]

233. Fructose is just a molecule

Fructose is just an arrangement of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. It can not be 'genetically engineered' - it's always in the same arrangement or it's no longer fructose. If you move one hydroxyl group, you turn it from fructose into glucose. (If I remember my ancient chemistry knowledge correctly)

This study used pure fructose and glucose - again, just particular arrangements of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

High fructose corn syrup is a liquid used to sweeten food. It's approximately 1/2 fructose and 1/2 glucose. Some corn used to make HFCS has been genetically modified. But HFCS was not used in this study.

[Joe Chi Minh]

241. You dispute the possibility that the result of that research may be true?

Or merely suggest that, being a serious scientist, you would require more information you would deem lent credence to the findings?

[MISSDem]

372. Bull. By your theory apples are just as bad for you as coke.

That is not true.

[mistertrickster]

161. But . . . but . . . but . . . I thought the free market was always "self correcting"?!

That's what the prophets of the Church of the Holy Marketplace are always preaching. :sarcasm:

[SalviaBlue]

184. I'm glad to see studies supporting what many of us KNOW from personal experience.

I have no doubt that HFCS is detrimental to my health. I avoid it as much as possible.

I have noticed that many food producers are catching on finally. My favorite 100% whole grain bread had HFCS in it a year ago... now they do not and they note this in big letters on the packaging. Ocean Spray cranberry juice notes the absence of HFCS on their juice (I wish they would get it out of the cranberry sauce too). It is getting easier and easier to avoid HFCS.

[jeff47]

239. HFCS != fructose

HFCS is 1/2 fructose, 1/2 glucose. This study involved fructose only. Not HFCS.

And the juice you drink has lots of fructose in it, because fructose is the naturally-occurring sugar in fruit.

People KNOW this because other people tell them "HFCS IS BAD!!" and it gets reinforced by the "HFCS FREE!!" packaging. Studies, including the one linked by the OP, do not support the idea that HFCS is detrimental to your health.

[emsimon33]

185. I compile a health-related newsletter every day

for entities in AZ. I'm going to include this one tomorrow as who knows when the national or AZ MSM will report it.

[varelse]

188. The actual headline is: Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener

The article doesn't specify the source of the fructose used: sure, it could be HFCS but it may also have been derived from another source.

[jeff47]

235. It can't be HFCS

HFCS is approximately 1/2 fructose and 1/2 glucose. It would be useless in this study because your 'fructose' subjects would be getting lots of glucose.

As for the headline, the study (linked above) was not in children.

[varelse]

272. Both the OP's headline and the title are misleading

The published research itself is interesting, though.

The "visceral adipose" is dangerous fat, relatively speaking, right?

That's why the scientists are postulating that excessive consumption of fructose would increase the risk of diabetes more quickly than the same level of consumption of glucose.

[Techn0Girl]

282. Headline Flames are the New Spelling Flame...

Same type of people post each

[varelse]

285. Nah - I'm not into flaming anyone, and never have been

I'm interested in the science behind this topic, but neither the article's headline nor the OP's title accurately reflected the subject of the study itself. The reporting in the article wasn't all that accurate either.

[MidwestRick]

200. Fructose...ok?

"Fructose bypasses the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of abnormal reactions, including the disruption of mechanisms that instruct the body whether to burn or store fat."

Sure they mention HFCS, but the article does make the comment above. I guess we should ban fruit since that is the sugar they carry...la

[krispos42]

204. This graph is interesting

[Joe Chi Minh]

256. VERY!

[Taverner]

209. no no FRUCTOSE causes obesity

As does sucrose.

Its no worse than any other sugar

And any other sugar is bad

[ElboRuum]

214. Great! Now could you please put sucrose back in my Coca-Cola?

The shit hasn't tasted the same since they started using HFCS.

[jeff47]

237. Sucrose is 1/2 fructose, 1/2 glucose. Just like HFCS.

Yes, HFCS has some other stuff in it, but you'll be taking in just as much fructose with a sucrose-sweetened soda.

[ElboRuum]

247. Sucrose != 1/2 fructose, 1/2 glucose.

How the molecule is arranged matters. While it is true that sucrose is a disaccharide (two sugars), it is a single molecule, a fructose bonded to a glucose. It takes more energy for the body to break down, and has a different flavor than either glucose or fructose. HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose. It is the fructose in its raw form which is the cause for concern because fructose, although a naturally occuring monosaccharide in fruits, is not ingested naturally in such concentrated amounts. Because fructose and glucose are monosaccharides which require no digestion to be stored, it has a slightly higher glycemic index than sucrose. However, disaccharides are very easily broken down, so the additional energy is not much, but sucrose IS different.

The flavor being "better" is debatable. Anecdotally, though, if you need some proof of this, Mexican grocers in Southern California have difficulty keeping Mexican-produced Coke in stock because it is made with sucrose, and people generally find it to be better tasting than U.S. produced Coke. YMMV.

[alphafemale]

329. I can get Mexican Coke in some places here in SC/GA

But it is usually almost $2 a bottle. So it's a rare treat. I love to ocassionally treat people to the taste. It's like a time machine in a bottle

"Do you remember what Coke used to taste like?" I ask. "Wanta go back in time about 25 years? Here. Taste this."

The look on peoples faces is amazing. HFCS is pure crap.

[Blue_Tires]

217. kick

[onlyadream]

218. Arnold bread has "no hfcs" right on the package!

So, people are starting to notice. But, darn it, the hi-c juice boxes that my son loves has them...ugh.

[rambler_american]

228. Same with

Thomas English Muffins. Right on the label in big bold letters. Glad to see companies promoting this.

[edogawa]

273. I am BIG fan of English Muffin....

mmmmmm....NIGELLA!

[rambler_american]

298. Nice Muffins

Welcome to DU!

[juno jones]

220. This shit is well hidden in your food supply.

I've begun to read labels a lot lately and a lot of 'healthy' food has this in, not just candy and soda.

Nice spaghetti dinner with bread? The bread and pasta sauce are likely to have HFCS.

Nice BBQ sandwich? Both BBQ and bread likely to have it, as well as most other condiments you might enjoy.

Commercial soups contain it as well as MSG.

Salad dressing? Y'know, salads, the epitome of health and frugal eating habits? Salad dressing is full of that shit.

You have to be diligent to escape the stuff. I cook most of my food from scratch but it's creeping into basic ingredients now and is getting harder and harder to avoid. I'm sure many people have no clue and are using the same stuff to cook with they always did, having no idea their food was adulterated.

[ElboRuum]

250. It's right on the label.

If this is "well hidden", then we're clearly not looking hard enough.

[libodem]

226. Told ya

[katkat]

234. honey?

So, what about honey? Is that safe? It's always for sale at our local farmers' markets, and I have started using it in place of sugar. Better to support local farmers than buy sugar refined with "bone char" is my thought.

[jeff47]

242. Honey is a mixture of fructose and glucose

At least the sweet parts of honey are.

Whether or not you think that's dangerous depends on whether you believe this article that's sensationalizing a study, or the actual study. Since it has a lot of fructose, it would be dangerous if you believe the article.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

266. Honey's perfectly safe.

Except for children under 1 year old, because of rare but dangerous possibility of botulism.

And in modest amounts, because it can lead to obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, etc. just like any other sugar.

Just like HFCS, honey is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. So you're not eating any better as far as healthy is concerned. All you're is adding flavor from the honey. And spending more, which may or may not be an issue for other people.

[TygrBright]

236. "In this corner, Ladeeez and Gennemun: Big Healthcare! And in the other corner: Big Agra! "

Place your bets, the bell is about to sound!

interestedly,
Bright

[twitomy]

257. How long before we see...

A class action lawsuit on the behalf of fat people against "Big Cookie"?

[DeSwiss]

262. I KNEW IT!!!!

- I've been saying this for years and everyone would look at me like I'm crazy and say nothing.

K&R

[yawnmaster]

264. The original study is not done with HFCS, it is done with fructose and glucose...

also...nothing has been "proven". It is an insult to science to state this.
This from the actual study;
"Dose-response studies are needed to determine what levels of dietary fructose and HFCS and/or sucrose are associated with adverse changes of lipids and decreased insulin sensitivity in different populations."
If something is proven, you don't need additional studies.

Also, since the study used pure fructose (not hfcs) this uncertainty is also in the study;
"Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose."

Science is given a bad name when the lay community stretches a result into something that is just not there.

[JoeyT]

299. Yep.

It doesn't help that the group was so small and the methodology wasn't terribly good.
At best it indicates a good direction for further research. Which won't stop people screaming "See! I knew I was right! Science prooooooooved it!"
It isn't like we didn't already know chugging sugar by the gallon was unhealthy anyway.

[yawnmaster]

306. and in the study they actually say that, that there is further research needed!

did the authors of the article actually read it, and if they did, even more shame on them!

[sasquatch]

267. I wish this didn't come from the london times though

[edogawa]

269. I have imagined this is true for some time;

Even in my country, Japan, obesity and diabetes has been increasing. In the past, people ate a lot of sugar without diabetes, so I have theorised that corn syrup must be guilty. I read some research that said that the average american housewife in 1960 ate 6000 calories each day, but obesity was rare. Now americans and japanese are getting much fatter on fewer calories. This is why I will not allow my children to drink soda.

[dustbunnie]

275. Can you please provide a link with the info that housewives ate 6000 cals a day. :-D

I know 250 pound bodybuilders who couldn't stuff that much food into their bodies per day.

I think rather, if you relook at your info, you'll find the inverse is true. People ate smaller portions back then. Grocery stores were not open 24/7 and there wasn't a Mickey D's on every street corner. People ate home cooked meals. There were less brands of junk to choose from. There were no junk food commercials blasting through the teevee all night long. The list of differences between the eras goes on and on...

[skepticscott]

279. The article overstates things rather badly

although that isn't unusual when non-scientists are writing about science and trying to make an impact on other non-scientists to boot.

To say that "Scientists have proved..." anything based on a single study of only 32 people isn't far short of genuine silliness. Especially when the article itself quotes the study leader as saying that the results are the "first evidence" of fructose causing health or metabolic problems above and beyond simple weight gain. Perhaps there is indeed something here, but it will take more and larger studies with similar results before anything can be considered "proven".

[edc]

284. All contemporary corporations

operate on the same principle as the tobacco industry.

[me b zola]

286. K&R

[JonQ]

292. Maybe now would be a good time to cut back on those sugar tariffs

and corn subsidizes. They aren't using HFCS for any other reason than we have artificially made it much much cheaper than sugar.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

294. It almost appears as if the author of the article didn't actually read the study

If she did, her reading comprehension is extremely poor.

[varelse]

300. To say the least, yes

Science writing is not for everyone, apparently :D

[yawnmaster]

307. If the author actually did read it, its a bigger "crime"! as the intended...

manipulation of the emotion of the masses is more apparent.

[marlakay]

297. Well gee now that everyone is fat and sick

now let's say maybe we shouldn't have added that to all our food and got america addicted to sugar.

[Swamp Rat]

305. HFCS = slow death poison

I'm sticking to water and juice. :9

[dustbunnie]

310. lol, HFCS wasn't studied in this particular experiment.

Fructose was. You know, the stuff in juice? :)

[Swamp Rat]

312. ok

:D

Stay away from HFCS. ;)

[upi402]

317. When I saw the film, FOOD INC.

It was cemented in my mind just how unhealthy, corrupt, and even unsafe - our food supply is here.

Thanks for the post!

[greengestalt]

330. Penalize them like the Tobacco industry

I'm sure there's a "Middle Manager" they laid off somewhere who can blow the whistle on them.


Way back, and this should have ended this before it got this far, 60 minutes did a ground breaking story on the "Corn Syrup Lobby" that made sure taxes on sugar kept it slightly more expensive than Corn syrup. Never enough that the housewife making cookies feels like a substitute, but enough that almost any and every food producer looking at "The bottom Line" will have to make a multi-million dollar choice to use pure sugar.


That's it-

I think I'm going to get a carbonator and make my own sodas with sugar, and a lot less than would have been used regardless.

[maryinthemorn]

340. Thanks for the post.

[Thor_MN]

348. The study was HFCS vs. Glucose, not HFCS vs. Cane sugar.

No one seems to be picking up on that. A similar study, ideally with a lot more people than just 16, contrasting HFCS against Cane Sugar would be more interesting. Especially since Cane Sugar is half fructose half glucose, just like HFCS.

The problem isn't the compostion of the sugar we eat, it's how damn much of it we eat. Marie Antoinette is atrributed with saying "Let them eat cake." The Republicon fatcats have adopted it as America's food supply motto. In the never ending times of plenty (of highly sweetened food) our bodies are gorging themselves to stock up for the famine that has always been there in the past.

[muriel_volestrangler]

349. No, it was pure fructose vs. pure glucose

as the additive to the diet, anyway. Though I agree (and others and I have already said this, in the thread) that HFCS v. cane sugar would be interesting - the study itself suggests it as a follow-up.

[Pavulon]

374. Autism too? Buy a bike or run, fat melts away

burn more energy than you consume. very simple for most.