Food Talk And Fabulous Finds - HFCS one of the worse things ever for weight gain/obesity/bad health?




diamondgeog
09-24-2013, 01:15 PM
I've had a lot of success reducing carbs, especially fast food carbs, bread, pasta, etc. I've learned a lot about high fructose corn syrup the past few months. I am NOT an expert, and far from knowing the 'truth'. But what I have found, at least me personally, I am combing every label and it it has it that product is done. And because I don't know for sure with restaurants, that is added incentive to not go out.

What I have learned is HFCS is NOT sugar or table sugar. HFCS is NOT natural even though it claims to be. It is created soley in an industrial process it does not exist in nature. Things are rarely this simple BUT the increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and general bad health for Americans is temporally correlated with HFCS explosion. We ignore that correlation as individuals and society at our own risk.

So HFCS is glucose and fructose. So is sucrose or table sugar. But sucrose is a 50-50 ratio. HFCS is not. Corn industry groups say it is 55% fructose. But studies have routinely found 60 to 65% common and as high as 90% fructose.

HFCS also doesn't bond the glucose and fructose the same way nature does. Finally the industrial manufacturing process for HFCS often adds mercury and other unknown chemicals. At least with sugar you know what you are getting.

These seem like subtle differences but they have PROFOUND implications. HFCS possibly makes you a lot hungrier than eating sugar does. It doesn't get processed the same way. It is NOT sugar. It is a new manufactured product that we still don't know all the negative consequences to. We do know obesity exploded at the same time its use did in the U.S. No way am I personally willing to just brush that aside.

If anyone is struggling with weight I would certainly check every product you use and throw at any with corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup. Again that is just me. I would also lobby your school district not to use HFCS products.

Here are just a couple of many articles:

http://www.sott.net/article/266575-Former-FDA-official-HFCS-consumption-destroying-the-youth-of-the-US

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/high-fructose-corn-syrup-dangers_b_861913.html

I am no longer willing to be a guinea pig for corn grower profits. For me, and not saying this is truth, but for me I find the evidence overwhelming that HFCS is one of the worst and most deadly products ever introduced into our diets and I think we should all be advocating for its removal in products. Or at the least as individuals try avoiding it as much as possible.


JohnP
09-24-2013, 01:23 PM
"All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. It is only the dose which makes a thing poison." - Paracelsus (http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/)

diamondgeog
09-24-2013, 01:33 PM
Of course portions are important. But there were Princeton studies with rats and they had the same amount of calories but one group had only sugar and one group had only HFCS.

The HFCS group gained more weight. And that is when consuming the SAME amount. There are a lot of studies that HFCS makes you hungrier than sugar. It just is not being processed the same way in the body and it is not impacting insulin levels exactly the same.

Again I think the evidence is overwhelming HFCS is a very deadly product and at the least it is NOT sugar. And everyone is not the same. I probably dodged a huge bullet not developing diabetes without starting to get healthy until being at 48. But how much longer would I have dodged that bullet? I am more than willing to avoid corn syrup, pay more, eat out less. Easy decision for me personally after reading about it.

BTW many more current studies are showing mercury in HFCS. Because it is produced in an industrial process the ability to extract the fructose from sugar often results in mercury being added. No thanks to HFCS BTW it is going to be interesting in Mexico. HFCS consumption is going down in the U.S. but is going up by almost equal amounts in Mexico. Childhood obesity just recently saw its first downturn in decades in the US. So it will be interesting to see. But I am opting OUT of the HFCS experiment. Let that author do it, not me.


vintagecat
09-24-2013, 01:39 PM
Yes. I wonder about HFCS and the concomitant diabetes/obesity explosion. Some things are simply more poisonous than others and not meant to ingest, even in the smallest quantities. HFCS seems to be more problematic dose to does than sugar by any gauge. Being a diabetic, I avoid both and simple starches.

Arctic Mama
09-24-2013, 02:14 PM
I avoid sugar and starch as a rule and have zero regrets or negative side effects for doing so. I'm not overly concerned about HFCS, because it's already verboten for me and my family except occasionally (for them, not me).

I also refuse to demonizes food producers - it just so happens my appetite and weight is much better controlled without any grains, added sugar, or excess naturally occurring sugars like lactose and fructose.

Trudiha
09-24-2013, 02:44 PM
Here in the UK, we don't grow much corn, we don't have much HFCS and we certainly don't have subsidized HFCS. However, we've still managed to get our own obesity epidemic going.

It's human nature to look for simple solutions and we all love a good conspiracy theory but the sad truth is that we can lose weight by eating (not many) Twinkie Bars and we can gain weight by eating (far too much) cheese made from the milk of grass fed cows, to whom lullabies are sung every night.

diamondgeog
09-24-2013, 03:02 PM
Well Artic not everyone has the ability to choose like you might. You maybe in a situation that allows you to avoid HFCS. Others aren't. I don't think they matter less. Kids on free lunches as their only option don't deserve to have HFCS.

I will 'demonize' food producers if they try to suppress science, mislead people, etc. Just like cigarette companies did. Why did the corn growers want to be able to use corn syrup instead of high fructose corn syrup? They wanted to INTENTIONALLY mislead people.

When you decide to make your money by misleading people and lying then you are going way beyond the scope of minimum obligations to your customers and society. You aren't just trying to sell your product, you are lying about your product to sell it.

Re: the UK. I watched the documentary The Men Who Made Us Fat. Pretty much the history of obesity in the UK. And as JohnP and yourself both correctly pointed out portion is huge. But the UK I bet has MANY snacks with HFCS in it. Whereas 50 years ago there would have been no HFCS at all, it didn't exist.

So why are people eating more now? Of course HFCS isn't the only cause but it can be a huge one. Also Britain isn't quite as overweight as the U.S. So that actually BACKS up HFCS as being a huge cause. Why is the UK getting overweight but not quite as fat or fast as the U.S.? Perhaps because slightly less exposure to HFCS?

It is also plausible that even relatively low levels of HFCS interact very badly in people. So the UK has gone from no HFCS 50 years ago (because it didn't exist) to some levels of HFCS for most of the UK population. Not as much as the US but some. Again it is an experiment that I choose not to be part of as much as possible and I am thankful I have some resources to allow that. Even so it is not easy as it seems to be everywhere now.

I can't say for sure it is the 'main cause' or a 'big part' of obesity, although there does seem to be a lot of compelling information and studies. But no one else can say definitely that it isn't. It very well could be. Including what is going on in the UK.

Arctic Mama
09-24-2013, 03:51 PM
Haha! I'm sorry, but seriously? Since when did I say others matter less simply because I personally avoid HFCS?

I refuse to demonizes food producers because they are necessary for sustaining the world's population and keep millions from starvation. Cheap and plentiful food benefits most of the world, including the wealthy in first world countries. Love it or hate it, high fructose corn syrup is the response to a market demand. I bear it no ill will, it isn't culpable for metabolic derangement in and of itself and the science doesn't bear this out either (consider the isolated, specific, necessarily limited nature of many of the hypotheses referenced relating to HFCS). Sugar, as a rule, is harmful to the human metabolism in varying doses and durations, vastly differing based on the individual's body. But again, this isn't universal. I'm not of the mind that a bottle of Karo is wicked and a mango is sacred - both give me cravings and mess up my digestion (and the scale! with bloat in the short term and rapid weight gain in the longer scheme). This is where education is key. Not limiting the product, but making data public so consumers can make informed choices, should they have the luxury to care.

Crusading for public health is a slippery slope. It just so happens my ideal diet is the polar opposite of the standard recommendations. I eat butter for health, not whole grains and fresh fruit. Who is right? Who deserves to make policy? My husband can eat corn syrup all day long and is neither fat nor feels ill for it. Which one of us has the 'correct' body with the best diet? I'd argue me, because mine is nutrient dense, but if we're looking at evidences he has never been obese and I have - so his diet, by that litmus, must be superior, right? You have to be careful in this arena - not only do logical fallacies abound, but so do false correlations, selection bias, and plain old limitations on our understanding of what is going on in a system as complex as the human body.

Not everything is a wicked conspiracy. Some things are. But the food producers are operating on both profit and market demand, as well as the subsidy game. Assigning blame shouldn't be simplistic or hasty in something as convoluted as our global food market.

JohnP
09-24-2013, 03:52 PM
This thread reminds me of why I have the signature I have. Diamondgeog I understand why you're saying the things you are but you really need to be careful where you get your information from. I mean no offense. It's easy to be misled on this subject and I am sure you can find hundreds of blog posts that are supporting your point of view.

If you want good information on the subject I'd read up on Alan Aragon's take.

In my opinion, the primary problem with HFCS is that it's "hidden" in so many processed foods.

diamondgeog
09-24-2013, 04:11 PM
JohnP and Trudiha,

I get what you are both saying. Total sweeteners consumption has gone up massively. So in the US we are consuming less sugar than say 50 years ago but more sweeteners, sugar and HFCS combined.

In the UK there has been a big increase in sugar consumption, way less in HFCS.

But interestingly diabetes rates in the US are 20% higher than the UK which is quite significant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2239302/Syrup-biscuits-ice-cream-energy-drinks-fuelling-diabetes-global-scale.html

JohnP you don't think HFCS and sugar are equivalent do you? And when they do chemical spectroscopy on HFCS there are a whole lot of undefined spikes that you don't get with sugar.

Arctic the statement about your husband makes me think it is exactly the same as someone who smoked a pack a day living to 90 and not getting lung cancer. Sure it can happen. But what does that prove? And perhaps that person would have lived to 100 without smoking. Agree with you about sugar.

freelancemomma
09-24-2013, 04:28 PM
It's human nature to look for simple solutions and we all love a good conspiracy theory but the sad truth is that we can lose weight by eating (not many) Twinkie Bars and we can gain weight by eating (far too much) cheese made from the milk of grass fed cows, to whom lullabies are sung every night.

I agree with this. It has been my experience that I can lose weight and maintain weight loss eating ANY foods, as long as I moderate my calories. I eat a lot of grains and some starches. I don't eat many processed foods, so I assume I don't get too much HFCS, though I do sometimes use fake maple syrup on pancakes. Macronutrient composition makes no difference to my hunger or satiety levels and i don't get digestive symptoms from any foods. Of course I realize not everyone is like me, but some people are.

I believe the current obesity epidemic has many causes, an important one being the ready and cheap availability of what Dr. Kessler calls "hyperpalatable" foods. Life is stressful and people find it hard to resist these daily comforts.

JMHO Freelance

time2lose
09-24-2013, 04:50 PM
In my opinion, HFCS may have been one of the worse things for obesity. I have been watching some YouTube videos from The University of California, which should be a credible source. The URLs are below. As John said, the point has been made that it is hidden in so many foods. These video touch me because they are describing the process that I experienced in my life. I believe what they say.

This video is long but very interesting Sugar: The Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The university also made a series of shorter videos on YouTube titled "The Skinny on Obesity" Here is a link to the first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0zD1gj0pXk&list=PL39F782316B425249).

diamondgeog
09-24-2013, 05:00 PM
I do want to say that I have embraced low carb. I haven't eaten ice cream, candy bars, cookies, pasta, a number of things since May. So yes overall carb consumption is very important. But I think HFCS has additional negative consequences that go beyond sugar. Including more diabetes and more hunger relative to consuming the same amount of sugar.

JohnP
09-24-2013, 09:08 PM
JohnP you don't think HFCS and sugar are equivalent do you? And when they do chemical spectroscopy on HFCS there are a whole lot of undefined spikes that you don't get with sugar.

This is a basic biochemistry question and the answer is yes - once they hit your stomach they are exactly the same. What happens from there depends. What does it depend on? Dose and context.
I realize you have made your mind up on this issue but for those people who actually want to educate themselves this is a good article (http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19) that addresses fructose metabolism and the afformentioned rat study.

I'm going to use an extreme and not scientific example to make a point. Pardon me for doing so.

"Born to Run" is a book about a group of indians that run rediculously long races and a rapid clip. Their primarily energy source is pinole (a form of corn meal.) Skinny as can be.

Corn fed cows move only when they need to and are fat and delicious to eat.

They are both eating a lot of corn but they are two different species, and have two different lifestyles, and therefore two different results.

Do you see how rediculous it is to take dose and context out of the equation?

Obesity is a multifactoral problem. It is not a HFCS problem. Your point that obesity rates are higher in the US than the UK is not evidence of anything.

shcirerf
09-25-2013, 12:31 AM
Well Artic not everyone has the ability to choose like you might. You maybe in a situation that allows you to avoid HFCS. Others aren't. I don't think they matter less. Kids on free lunches as their only option don't deserve to have HFCS.

I will 'demonize' food producers if they try to suppress science, mislead people, etc. Just like cigarette companies did. Why did the corn growers want to be able to use corn syrup instead of high fructose corn syrup? They wanted to INTENTIONALLY mislead people.

When you decide to make your money by misleading people and lying then you are going way beyond the scope of minimum obligations to your customers and society. You aren't just trying to sell your product, you are lying about your product to sell it.

Re: the UK. I watched the documentary The Men Who Made Us Fat. Pretty much the history of obesity in the UK. And as JohnP and yourself both correctly pointed out portion is huge. But the UK I bet has MANY snacks with HFCS in it. Whereas 50 years ago there would have been no HFCS at all, it didn't exist.

So why are people eating more now? Of course HFCS isn't the only cause but it can be a huge one. Also Britain isn't quite as overweight as the U.S. So that actually BACKS up HFCS as being a huge cause. Why is the UK getting overweight but not quite as fat or fast as the U.S.? Perhaps because slightly less exposure to HFCS?

It is also plausible that even relatively low levels of HFCS interact very badly in people. So the UK has gone from no HFCS 50 years ago (because it didn't exist) to some levels of HFCS for most of the UK population. Not as much as the US but some. Again it is an experiment that I choose not to be part of as much as possible and I am thankful I have some resources to allow that. Even so it is not easy as it seems to be everywhere now.

I can't say for sure it is the 'main cause' or a 'big part' of obesity, although there does seem to be a lot of compelling information and studies. But no one else can say definitely that it isn't. It very well could be. Including what is going on in the UK.


Not sure why you are worried about the UK, being from Texas, but if you search Supersize vs Superskinny, a UK weight show, free on You Tube, those folks are hooked on Chinese take away, and fish and chips, pizza and lager and so on. Not much sugar in a ton of fried stuff!

HFCS just seems to be the chosen evil of the day as far as I can see.

You don't have to eat it. You have the choice to read labels. Not buy or eat it. You live in an area of America, where even if you do not own or rent in a place where you have space to garden, you certainly could container garden and supplement your budget with home grown food.

As a farmer, a small time one, I do take offense that you think that most of us are the fat problem. Once our crop leaves the farm, it's totally market driven.

Last years alfalfa, was a money maker. The year before that, the millet, droughted out, no money there. Lost our butts! The year before that, the wheat, 8 hail storms, forget that!

Once our crop leaves the farm, we have no control over what it turns into, that is driven, by what the public wants!

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 08:47 AM
JohnP everything I have read, and I have a science background, was a science teacher, M.S. yada yada is that it is very much not the same. I'd like to say it was a difference of opinion, but chemistry is chemistry. How can it be the same?

Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose. HFCS is NOT. And the molecules are not bound the same. HFCS is at least 55% fructose but quite often in samples of products is 60-65% and has been found up to the 90%. It is many times sweeter than sucrose. It often contains mercury and other unknown chemicals because of the industrial manufacturing process. We can differ on what we think HFCS is doing but it is absolutely scientifically not the same.

Nor from countless scientific studies does it react and get processed and have the same effects as sugar. Obviously you would grant me that the ratio isn't the same. But then you think that is the end of the story from what I am getting. Once in just fructose and glucose, no difference. The evidence I think emphatically contradicts that viewpoint.

Wannabeskinny
09-25-2013, 09:27 AM
After having studied Dr. Lustig's findings I must agree with him that there is no difference between HFCS versus sugar, sure sugar is more natural but they both have the same effect on our bodies. I avoid HFCS as much as I can but I do not kid myself like some people do into thinking "oh this twinkie is made with real sugar, it's better for me." NO! Sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Whether it comes from a cookie or a piece of bread or from ketchup or from maple syrup or wherever it comes from, sweet things are pervading our culture. I refuse to believe that this is what the public wants! I refuse to believe that just because we want to eat it and we're willing to spend our money it that it's OUR fault. No, sugar addiction is not a small thing. If the industry is willing to profit from our weaknesses as humans then the government has a responsibility to step in and make some hard decisions. How come the government was willing to do this with cigarettes? How come the government was willing to do this with vaccines? The general public put up a fight like no other when it came to these inicitatives. People were in an uproar when soda machines were taken out of public schools. Now we're ok with it and probably a lot better off. Businesses were in an uproar when they were told that ice cream trucks shouldn't be waiting outside of the school at dismissal. But is it necessary to assert our freedom of commerce in this particular way? Just because you CAN make money from hundreds of school children rushing up to your ice cream truck does that mean that you should? And then blame the kid who grew up to a life of obesity for not being able to control his need for daily ice cream?

I ain't no scientist! All I know is that when I eat sugar I want more sugar, and then I want a little bit of pasta too and then throw in some dessert and then at midnight I'm hungry again. That's the power of carbs/sugar/hfcs. Call it whatever you want, there are many names for this powerful substance.

I try extremely hard not to give much money to the corn industry. Or the wheat industry. Enough is enough.

...those folks are hooked on Chinese take away, and fish and chips, pizza and lager and so on. Not much sugar in a ton of fried stuff!



Wrong, all those things you listed are carbs - which your body processes like sugar. There's a ton of sugar in chinese food by the way. Pizza dough does employ sugar in order for the yeast to activate. The sauces that are eaten with fish (tartar) and chips (ketchup) are full of sugar, as are most sauces that fried foods are paired with. Beer? lol The point is that people believe they're not eating sugar when sugar or HFCS is in practically everything.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 09:44 AM
Well we have that link I put up earlier that diabetes rates are 20% higher in the US than UK.

Ok so there is over-consumption of sweeteners in both countries. But in the US it is way more HFCS. In the UK way more sucrose. 20% higher why?

Well here you go. Princeton University BTW.

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

It is true that some researchers thought there was no difference at one point. I doubt most still think that. I find little evidence from the information and newer studies that are available that they are the same. Still not sure how you guys can support they are.

I really hope Wannabe and JohnP you read the Princeton link and then tell me you think they are the same. I'd like them to be the same. Because I probably had way too many for way too many decades. But that does not seem to be the case. Clearly to me, obviously not as clearly to you.

As I said 55% might not sound profoundly different than 50%. Being bound differently might not sound like a big difference. But sounding like a big difference or not is really beside the point isn't it? It seems like rats and human bodies (20% more diabetes) absolutely think its different.

BTW I had high stomach fat and high triglycerides. Sure overall sugar too high, but also probably HFCS as contributions as well.

Wannabeskinny
09-25-2013, 09:57 AM
[QUOTE=diamondgeog;4848227
I really hope Wannabe and JohnP you read the Princeton link and then tell me you think they are the same. I'd like them to be the same. Because I probably had way too many for way too many decades. But that does not seem to be the case. Clearly to me, obviously not as clearly to you.

[/QUOTE]

Did you read my post? I was kind of agreeing with you yet you're arguing with me. They are not the same in chemical structure. To ME however, I treat all sugars the same ---> as evil. I think a lot of people get held up on the notion that something that is labeled as "naturally sweetened" or "no artificial sweeteners" and think that it's healthy. Wrong. All sweeteners in all its forms leads to health problems. All of them. We single out each and every one of them and toot its faults. At the moment you are singling out HFCS. I have no reason to disagree that it is worse than sugar, it wouldn't take much to convince me. I make no case on behalf of HFCS. I'm just pointing out that there is danger in singling out one form of sugar because I'm afraid it will turn people on to a different sugar and at the end of the day I believe all sugar is bad.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 10:32 AM
And I do agree with you. I am not like yeah sugar is better than HFCS, party down on the sugar. Portion control and trying to avoid sugars/carbs is huge to me. I don't think they are contradictory at all.

Of course you are right and JohnP is as well that the number one take away is portions. I am saying that is 100% correct.

At the same time I think it is wrong and even harmful to say that HFCS and sugar are the same and more importantly the same to our bodies. For stating you were saying that they were the same, I apologize.

I would end my post slightly differently than you. At the end of the day sugar is bad, HFCS is worse. Both should be avoided as much as possible.

JohnP
09-25-2013, 10:52 AM
JohnP everything I have read, and I have a science background, was a science teacher, M.S. yada yada is that it is very much not the same. I'd like to say it was a difference of opinion, but chemistry is chemistry. How can it be the same?

Your background might be science based but in this thread you are getting a solid F when it comes to research.

I linked an article that discects the princton study and discuusses fructose metabolism. You don't read it and post a crap blog article that merely references the princton artcile and reads like the National Enquirer.

If you were still a teacher and had a student that didn't read his homework what grade would you give them?

I'm afraid this will be my last post on the subect as you will ignore any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you want to do your homework maybe we can discuss the matter.

Too much of anything is bad. The question is how much is too much and the answer is ... it depends.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 12:49 PM
Read the article, now, correct for calling me out on not reading it. One of the bottom comments stated that:

It is much more important to look at the big picture; keep your physical activity high, manage your overall food intake, make sure most of your food is from minimally refined sources.

I could not agree more with that. So yes overall consumption of sweeteners is the 'big problem'. I think it is way too premature to say that HFCS isn't additionally harmful however. Something is acidic or basic if it has more hydrogen ions or more OH ions. So something being roughly the same is not equivalent. You also have the potential problems of how HFCS is created in the first place.

HFCS is sweeter, we don't fully understand its effect on appetite as compared to sugar. If it is actually processed the same, etc. And also importantly, I personally think very importantly, studies now showing HFCS might be more addicting than sugar is even. Given how much moderation is important to you John I would think that would be extra disturbing.

I don't think we are exactly talking in circles but I still find zero evidence to say HFCS is just like sugar. Seems like there are just as much if not more assumptions on the it is just sugar side.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 12:59 PM
Found a recent article that Mexico has now surpassed American obesity rates. HFCS consumption is going up a lot there. The human body is incredibly complex. I think it is very foolish to think that the body is going to not only process but react in hunger exactly the same, have the same exact impacts on the liver for instance, etc. Again zero proof I have seen anywhere that HFCS and sugar have the same impacts, just all assumptions. If they were the same why does the US have 20% more per capita diabetes than the UK?

http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news/al-nisr-portfolio/weekend-review/how-us-exports-its-obesity-epidemic-1.1233069

freelancemomma
09-25-2013, 01:23 PM
In the 50s and 60s kids grew up on sweetened cereal, BPJ sandwiches, ice cream snacks, and lots of starch at dinner, and yet North America was far less obese than today. Clearly sugar and starches are not the only culprit (or even the main one, IMO). We eat more and move less. As far as I'm concerned, that's what's making us fat.

I don't eat much sugar on most days, but once in a while I do. Like today, for example: I had a 140-g luxury European chocolate bar for lunch. I know from experience that I won't have any symptoms, sugar crash, compulsion to eat more sugar, etc. If I only do this every few weeks I see no harm in it. (My lab values are all fine.) As I've stated before, I aim for the LEAST RESTRICTIVE strategy for maintaining my weight loss and health. It's what keeps me sane.

Freelance

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 01:30 PM
We eat more and move less. As far as I'm concerned, that's what's making us fat. I completely agree with that.

But they are connected. What if we eat more because HFCS/sugar foods increase our appetities even though we have had a lot of calories already? And then we don't have any energy because of these bad diet choices?

Why are we eating more and exercising less? Did a whole nation all of a sudden decide to do this?

I had a huge belly. Huge. I've lost 40lbs and gained some muscle but am still very overweight. I'm a shade under 5'10".

But my belly fat, thankfully, started to drop a lot recently. I haven't been losing a lot of weight recently but I am continuing to try to stay away from carbs but also purging and not buying products with any HFCS in them lately. I am losing inches. Still creeping up on the 230s though, hopefully by end of October at the worst.

I've found this to be true from personal experience.

"Studies have shown that fructose can be hard on the body. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation compared the effects of fructose-sweetened drinks with glucose-sweetened drinks over the course of 10 weeks in overweight and obese subjects. About 25 percent of the energy requirements over that time period came from the drinks (read: soda). While study participants gained about the same amount of weight regardless of sweetener, the fructose group—but not the glucose group—saw increases in belly fat as well as a dulling of insulin sensitivity."

And yes sugar has almost as much fructose. But it is also bound to the glucose differently. So it isn't just one thing that makes HFCS different but a host of things. Manufactures also do not stop at the 55% fructose level they say they do. Often sodas show 60-65% fructose. Some foods have shown over 90%.

Trudiha
09-25-2013, 01:36 PM
Well we have that link I put up earlier that diabetes rates are 20% higher in the US than UK.

Ok so there is over-consumption of sweeteners in both countries. But in the US it is way more HFCS. In the UK way more sucrose. 20% higher why?


Correlation and causation aren't the same thing. Although the UK isn't as monocultural as it used to be, we don't have as wide or the same ethnic mix as the US. For example, I've never met a British born person of Mexican heritage and those of Mexican heritage are more likely to develop diabetes that the indigenous population of the UK. There is also a smaller proportion of folks of Asian, Middle Eastern and African heritage, all of whom are more likely to develop diabetes. Genetics also play a big part in who develops diabetes and if the UK has a smaller pool of people with a genetic pre-disposition to diabetes, no matter what rubbish we eat, we are less likely to develop it.

Song of Surly
09-25-2013, 01:48 PM
But they are connected. What if we eat more because HFCS/sugar foods increase our appetities even though we have had a lot of calories already? And then we don't have any energy because of these bad diet choices?

Why are we eating more and exercising less? Did a whole nation all of a sudden decide to do this?

Yes, I think we did. Socially, our lives revolve more around food now. High calorie food is more abundant than it was 50 years ago for a large number of the population. People eat out more, and the portion sizes of the plates we receive when we eat out has gotten larger. The food industry, especially snack foods, have really just become the massive, global industry that it is in the past 70 years, giving us a large amount of choice at an affordable price. For low-income households, palatable and affordable food is often high in calories, and from what I know from myself as well as from what I've seen on this site, there is also a huge knowledge gap for most people in society on health. This is fueled, in part, by a fairly absurd weight loss industry.

As far as exercise goes, I think the invention of the television (and the absurd amount of choice in entertainment now) and the computer (and all that now comes with that) has probably greatly attributed to a lack of regular movement.

I admit, I have no science to back this up, and as stated earlier, correlation is not causation. I don't think it's a stretch to say that these are the trends that we have seen in society over time, however.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 01:54 PM
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing. Although the UK isn't as monocultural as it used to be, we don't have as wide or the same ethnic mix as the US. For example, I've never met a British born person of Mexican heritage and those of Mexican heritage are more likely to develop diabetes that the indigenous population of the UK. There is also a smaller proportion of folks of Asian, Middle Eastern and African heritage, all of whom are more likely to develop diabetes. Genetics also play a big part in who develops diabetes and if the UK has a smaller pool of people with a genetic pre-disposition to diabetes, no matter what rubbish we eat, we are less likely to develop it.

Good points.


All of those things are true regarding portion size, TV, etc. I do think it is still an accelerating treadmill though that with the changes in diet you are vastly more tired and prone to not exercise. And then you get into that downward spiral, regardless of TV or computer availability. I can read for hours each night very happily.

BTW I am currently exercising more than I ever have in my life, with a young daughter and more time with her than previous family commitments say a decade ago. What gave, mostly, was TV watching. I have less free time but more exercise. I know choices...choices. But changing diet made exercise a lot more doable/achievable.

diamondgeog
09-25-2013, 02:51 PM
JohnP,

Not sure if you are still reading the thread or not. But if you think I was ever stating, yahoo, sugar is so much better than HFCS go out and down a case of Dublic Dr. Pepper. No way.

Michael Pollan was concerned about this. That food manufactures were almost now promoting sugar as a health food. Look its better than HFCS. I do think its the lesser of two EVILS. Both evil. I am not saying sugar is good, never ever would say that. I don't think the message of people concerned about HFCS is that sugar is good.

For instance you would never catch me with Youplait. I have Greek yoghourt with some agave in it. If I am going to have something sweet, which is less and less, I do vastly prefer sugar to HFCS. I also do cook with butter. I am not going to eliminate it but when I use something I prefer it be as 'natural' and 'whole' as possible.

JohnP
09-25-2013, 04:51 PM
It is created soley in an industrial process it does not exist in nature. Things are rarely this simple BUT the increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and general bad health for Americans is temporally correlated with HFCS explosion. We ignore that correlation as individuals and society at our own risk.

HFCS also doesn't bond the glucose and fructose the same way nature does. Finally the industrial manufacturing process for HFCS often adds mercury and other unknown chemicals. At least with sugar you know what you are getting.

These seem like subtle differences but they have PROFOUND implications. HFCS possibly makes you a lot hungrier than eating sugar does. It doesn't get processed the same way. It is NOT sugar. It is a new manufactured product that we still don't know all the negative consequences to. We do know obesity exploded at the same time its use did in the U.S. No way am I personally willing to just brush that aside.

... but for me I find the evidence overwhelming that HFCS is one of the worst and most deadly products ever introduced into our diets and I think we should all be advocating for its removal in products. Or at the least as individuals try avoiding it as much as possible.

I am still reading. You've toned down the hyperbole quite a bit since your first post. I quoted your first post because you may have forgotten your initial stance on this subject.

Bottom line aside from Mercury (which is a manufacturing issue not a HFCS issue) is that the dose creates the poison when it comes to HFCS. When it hits the stomach the way it is bonded makes no difference, at all. That is why I called sugar and HFCS identical.

konablue
09-25-2013, 07:17 PM
Diamondgeog, thank you for the post and the whirlwind of attention it has received. Let's bring it to the forefront and let people make their own decisions. I, for one, am on your side with HFCS. Politics and conspiracies aside if there is one thing that you can do to greatly improve your overall health...try to limit the amount of food that you eat that has an ingredient label on it. :)

JohnP
09-25-2013, 08:13 PM
...if there is one thing that you can do to greatly improve your overall health...try to limit the amount of food that you eat that has an ingredient label on it. :)

No question about it - a primarily whole foods diet is going to lead to a lower weight and better health.

My point in "arguing" in this thread is that if you point the finger at HFCS you're "not seeing the forest for the trees". It's like demonizing any one particular thing.

The fundamentals of weight loss have nothing to do with HFCS.

kaplods
09-25-2013, 10:52 PM
What made me realize that the demonization of hfcs was mostly hype was the fact that so many on the demonizing bandwagon were pro-agave nectar (pretty much a twin or at least kissing cousin of hfcs, made by essentially the same process but from agave rather than corn).

I've also found hfcs to have little to no relationship to my weight. I've tried almost every kind of diet there is, and I've failed to lose on every kind of diet that didn't address hunger and calorie control.

Sugars and starches of ANY kind, increase my appetite. Eliminating hfcs did nothing for my weight. Eating only "whole foods" didn't help. I just switched from one kind of carb addiction to another. When I eliminated hfcs, I overate table sugar. When I eliminated table sugar, I overate fruit. When I eliminated fruit, I overate breads, grains and pastas. When I eliminated grains, I overate beans, potatoes and other starchy vegetables.

There are no simple solutions, and I find it very unlikely that trading hfcs for table sugar would do much if anything to solve the epidemics of obesity and blood sugar dysfunction.

Whether hfcs is more harmful than table sugar is a ridiculous argument, because even if trrue, it makes little difference, because the SAD includes far too much of all sugars and starches. It's like discussing the distinctions between snake venoms. Black mamba venom may be more toxic than king cobra venom, but both are likely to kill you just as dead. It doesn't matter which is more deadly - avoid them both.


It's unfortunately common for people to try to condense dietary guidelines into a handful of oversimplified rules. The problem lies in that balanced nutrition cannot be condensed to that degree and still retain the core truths. Too much gets lost in the oversimplification process.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 07:37 AM
I find zero evidence to dismiss HFCS as just like sugar. The devils are often in the details. While I overwhelmingly agree that overall sweetener consumption of all types is the main problem, HFCS simply is NOT sugar.

It doesn't have the same ratio, it isn't bonded the same, even though JohnP makes the claim that it isn't significant, I think the jury is very much out. It is 55% fructose...or is it? Manufactuers can do what they want even though they are 'supposed' to stop at 55%.

Is it more addictive than sugar? Many studies are showing it is. Does it get processed differently, a 'fructose metabolism' so to speak? Many studies are showing so. Can it contain mercury? Yes. Can it contain other unknown stuff> Yes. There are spikes on chemical analysis that no one is sure about.

The SAD diet is the problem. I have no problem with that and too much sweetners being the major take away lesson. But thinking HFCS is just like sugar seems just wrong to me with all the contradictory evidence. At the very least WAY too premature to claim.

How do you know it makes little difference? You are just assuming HFCS makes little difference. Again the jury is very much out on that and you are making as many assumptions and jumps to conclusions as anyone claiming HFCS is more damaging than you think.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 08:49 AM
Kona,

You are welcome. I have learned a lot from the other posters and I thank them for expressing their points of views.

Of course I am one person with my particular body chemistry. But when I was eating fast food I always remember thinking, especially at McDonald's that they were putting 'stuff' in their food. It didn't taste that good going down but I had really strong urges to eat it again and soon.

It could be that it was more of everything than a snack and the more was the addictive trigger. I am not sure.

I was eating snacks and sweets at the time also. But it was noticeably a notch up with a visit to McDonald's. It was more addictive than other kinds of 'junk food'. Was it that there was even more HFCS in a meal there compared to the other sweet things I was eating at the time? Of course I can't say yes, or for sure. But it would be foolish and irresponsible to rule that possibility out at this point, for me.

kaplods
09-26-2013, 11:27 AM
If fructose is so damned deadly, shouldn't we also be avoiding all fruit because of its fructose content?

Processed, granular fuctose was marketed as a weight loss aid only about 30 to 35 years ago. There were just as many nutrition and diet experts arguing that fructose was healthier than sugar - and there was just as much research that seemed to support the claim.

I find it hard to get behind the "fructose is more harmful than table sugar" bandwagon when I remember so clearly being duped by the opposing claim that "fructose is healthier than table sugar."

And sugar is by far, not the only food that comes in and out of favor for weight loss. If you live long enough, you see that most nutrition claims end up being cyclical. They come in and out of fashion like clothing styles.

JohnP
09-26-2013, 11:38 AM
Here is where we agree. We don't know, for sure, how much difference it makes that HFCS has replaced sugar in many processed products. The research that has been done so far has been inconclusive because it is very difficult to seperate out the impact of one thing when there are so many things that contribute to the obesity epidemic.

On the other hand you're putting out spurious information as if it were factual.

1) You find zero evidence to dismiss HFCS as just like sugar. That's because you're reading in the wrong places or ignoring any information that doesn't agree with your already made up mind.

2) It isn't bonded the same. Correct it is not bonded the same. Once it hits the stomach those bonds are undone and it makes no difference. This isn't up for dispute. You may as well argue against the moon landing my friend.

3) Many studies are showing it is more addictive than sugar. Is this a fact? I'm not aware of this fact. If you want to have a reasonable discussion you need to drop the hyperbole or link up these studies so we can see them. I would define many as three or more but post as many as you want. Before posting you may want to actually read the study or at least have a true understanding of what the study does and doesn't say. The Princton study is a perfect example. Many people tout it as demonstrating something that it does not. It's mind boggling that apparently no one has even read it. They just read the conclusion where the scientists seemingly ignored their own data. Plus, we're not rats.

Then, and most importantly in my opinion, it comes down to dose and context. Yes, fructose is not processed the same as other sugars but in the context of a person who isn't consuming the SAD it doesn't matter because that person's gylocogen stores are filled up 24/7. In the context of a person who is active and not sedentary it doesn't matter for the same reason. Only when liver glycogen is full and fructose continues to be dealt with does it make any difference at all. If you don't know what I'm talking about here than you need to get a handle on it because it makes a big difference in understanding why I keep telling you that dose and context matter.

I'd invite you to read Alan Aragon's take on it because he and Dr Lustig engage in a bit of debate on the subject. Warning: your current belief system will be challenged.

kaplods
09-26-2013, 01:10 PM
If you don't have a strong science background, the wiki page on fructose provides a decently balanced, not overly technical view of fructose, explaining the pros and cons (and there are pros as well as cons) of fructose.

If you want more technical information, the source list is a good start.

The most important take away is that the jury is still out as to whether there is a clear difference in health consequences between fructose and other sugars.

The experts in the field of food chemistry haven't come to a consensus, so it's premature for lay people to draw any firm conclusions. There just isn't enough science to back up the ridiculous claims being made about HFCS.

Especially ridiculous is the claim that even so much as a trace of hfcs in a product is somehow magically "worse" than a cupful of "real" (table) sugar (which is 50% fructose as opposed to 55% in hfcs).

Most interesting for weight loss is the meta analysis referred to on the wiki page (in other words a study of MANY studies) which found no difference in weights between subjects fed or not fed hfcs when fed on a fixed-calorie diet. The take-away for humans is that if you are counting calories, subbing sugar for hfcs is unlikely to cause a difference in weight loss.

If you notice a hunger increase with hfcs (even if it's imaginary) you may benefit from eliminating it; but for now, there is not enough scientifically valid evidence to make any firm claims one way or the other.

There's a lot of persuasive evidence against super-high carb (especially high sugar) diets, but as to the dangers of specific sugars, there's just not enough to be persuasive. For every study that compares one sugar against another, there are thousands that study sugars generically. And even those specific sugar studies haven't yielded the dramatic differences claimed by lay people (it is extremely unusual for the researchers and other experts in the relevant fields to make these claims).

I tend to be more persuaded by the majority of experts in the relevant fields than by untrained individuals, especially those with a financial stake in making extraordinary claims, or people who have been influenced by such people.

In my local area in particular, most of the anti-hfcs sentiment (and other non-mainstream views regarding food science) can be traced to a small group of health food store owners and oddly enough, chiropractors.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 01:20 PM
I read the earlier Aragon link. And you are making some very good points. Dose and context does matter. A LOT.

I am not as sure that the bonds don't matter. But fully admit I don't know. For me the jury is still out on the bonds not mattering and the impacts of HFCS versus just sugar. I am not willing to say it is minimal, it might be. It might also for some be a large difference and for others not so much. If you are on the cusp of diabetes maybe HFCS has more impact.

I will try and find more links on the addiction side.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-904320.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337798/Are-sugar-addict-Scientists-say-high-fructose-corn-syrup-addictive-cocaine.html

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/high_fructose_corn_syrup_addictive_cocaine_says_re searcher-112817

Now those are all referencing the same paper. Bottomline for me is a lot of unknowns. In 100% agreement overall carbs/sweeteners of all type should be the main focus.

And this is so complex it is hard to unravel. We consume a lot more total sweeteners now on average. We being the U.S. Was sweeter than sugar HFCS part of increasing cravings for sugar of all types? Was the marketing? Was the lower costs that HFCS allowed?

So far right now I am sugar bad, HFCS bad. HFCS additional negative impacts beyond sugar? Unknown with certainty, but some(I think it is a lot you might not) evidence that there are.

And as far as context making a difference, fructose from fruit and from HFCS is a different context and extremely likely it is getting processed differently and having different overall impacts.

It may turn out there are not additional negative impacts from HFCS. Perhaps. But since HFCS is in stuff I shouldn't be eating anyway, not a bad thing to try to avoid.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 01:28 PM
From the Wall Street Journal link above.

"Currently the US Food and Drug Administration's legal limit on the fructose content of HFCS is 55 percent, but recent studies have shown fructose levels in popular soft drink brands exceed the legal amount. The Corn Refiners Association, which represents the producers of HFCS, has acknowledged that a version of HFCS with 90 percent fructose has been in use for decades, even though it has never been tested for safety or approved by the FDA."

The Corn Refiners Association acknowledged the use of 90% HFCS use.....

So this thread has helped me. And I appreciate all the comments I really do. And if it has helped one other person start looking up stuff on HFCS then it has been worth it.

The Science 2.0 link is interesting because at the bottom are more links. Some saying no difference which I read. Then at the end of that link one of the links was to a study saying yes impactful differences. So it is still being debated in labs and in message boards.

QuilterInVA
09-26-2013, 01:42 PM
Read "Fat, Sugar, and Salt" if you really want to know what is in your food. Since reading it I have cut all processed foods from my diet. I cook from scratch using lean proteins, vegetables, fruits. I've never been healthier or felt better.

Trudiha
09-26-2013, 01:56 PM
And as far as context making a difference, fructose from fruit and from HFCS is a different context and extremely likely it is getting processed differently and having different overall impacts.


While fructose from fruit and fructose from HFCS aren't exactly processed differently, the fiber in fruit (and vegetables) certainly slows down the absorption rate which, if nothing else, is easier on your pancreas. All sugars, once they get down to glucose level, are process in the same way, however, as anyone with a lactose intolerance will tell you, getting them down to that stage does require different chemical processes.

This is, mostly, an argument that can't really be won as we simply don't know enough about exactly how different substances are processed by the body or how different bodies work. I suspect that at some point in the future, most health conscious folks will go back to sweetening everything with molasses, in the same way that butter is having a massive resurgence. We are, probably, better off eating as much as possible in as natural a form as possible.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 02:17 PM
Thanks Susan, I will look it up. And congrats on your marvelous success and health.

Just down 40 lbs I almost feel like a new person. So wow on your tremendous success.

konablue
09-26-2013, 02:18 PM
Where is the GMO conversation here? We are talking manufactured sweetener (HFCS) vs. fructose that is found naturally in our produce.

"By 2012, 88 percent of corn (maize) and 94 percent of soy grown in the United States were genetically modified."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-gmo-corn-soybeans-dominate.html#jCp"

Our government (FDA), who is in bed with Monsanto (GMO seed producer), subsidizes this crop and they are more than happy to make HFCS the primary cheap sweetener in the US. Take a peak at the documentary King Corn if you get a chance. Quite eye opening.

At any rate I stay clear of anything GMO since we have no idea what it may do to our bodies in the long term. Is it any wonder why so many countries around the world have banned GMO seeds/crops, especially corn/maize? If you are going to pick up something sweet to put in your mouth make it organic fruit. It really seems like the safest bet.

JohnP
09-26-2013, 05:08 PM
3) Many studies are showing it is more addictive than sugar. Is this a fact? I'm not aware of this fact. If you want to have a reasonable discussion you need to drop the hyperbole or link up these studies so we can see them. I would define many as three or more but post as many as you want. Before posting you may want to actually read the study or at least have a true understanding of what the study does and doesn't say.

Your response?

I will try and find more links on the addiction side.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-904320.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337798/Are-sugar-addict-Scientists-say-high-fructose-corn-syrup-addictive-cocaine.html

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/high_fructose_corn_syrup_addictive_cocaine_says_re searcher-112817

Now those are all referencing the same paper. Bottomline for me is a lot of unknowns. In 100% agreement overall carbs/sweeteners of all type should be the main focus.

Are you sure you have a science background. You were supposed to find a study where HFCS was more addicting than sugar. (You claim there are many)

Instead you come up with a study that shows HFCS is addicting to rats. Did you read the study? Did you even read the articles you linked? The 30 seconds I spent reading the article says the study never compares HFCS to sugar. Instead it is compared to saccharine. No surprise the rats preferred HFCS to saccharine.

The good news? It makes a great headline. HFCS is as addicting as cocaine.

Ya - sure it is.

konablue
09-26-2013, 06:08 PM
HFCS vs. table sugar http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

I have a degree in Biology but am not a scientist. I do think that the folks at Princeton conducted a fairly good study on HFCS.

Thoughts JohnP? (Happy to find more if you're interested.) ;)

JohnP
09-26-2013, 06:54 PM
HFCS vs. table sugar http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

I have a degree in Biology but am not a scientist. I do think that the folks at Princeton conducted a fairly good study on HFCS.

Thoughts JohnP? (Happy to find more if you're interested.) ;)

This is the third time this study has been referenced in this thread. Twice by diamondgeog and now by you.

My thoughts are already in this thread.

3) Many studies are showing it is more addictive than sugar. Is this a fact? I'm not aware of this fact. If you want to have a reasonable discussion you need to drop the hyperbole or link up these studies so we can see them. I would define many as three or more but post as many as you want. Before posting you may want to actually read the study or at least have a true understanding of what the study does and doesn't say. The Princton study is a perfect example. Many people tout it as demonstrating something that it does not. It's mind boggling that apparently no one has even read it. They just read the conclusion where the scientists seemingly ignored their own data. Plus, we're not rats.

I also posted a much more detailed analysis of the study by an actual expert.

this is a good article (http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19) that addresses fructose metabolism and the afformentioned rat study.

diamondgeog
09-26-2013, 08:23 PM
Kona,

Good points about the corn being GMO. Another potentially big concern. I think genetic expression is going to become more and more a focus in the coming years.

We are finding more and more that lifestyle choices can result in gene expression and suppression. And yes we have no idea the potential negative consequences of GMO corn.

JohnP what would you have scientists do? Rats have been surrogates for studies for centuries. And there are just as many industry supported studies touting HFCS it is JUST SUGAR!

At least I am open to all the unknowns surrounding HFCS. It seems you have determined it is no more deleterious than sugar. I don't see it, too many unknowns, too many, if not perfect, at least well enough done studies to raise a lot of unresolved questions about HFCS.

konablue
09-26-2013, 09:05 PM
diamondgeog- couldn't agree more. As I said I will stick with fresh organic fruit for my sweet tooth. Can't go wrong with whole foods. But I do hope people look more deeply into the food they choose to eat as well as feed their families. HFCS, GMO's, pesticides, corn-fed beef, commercially raised chickens... there is a lot to investigate. Just make sure those studies you are reading aren't funded by the FDA or Monsanto. ;)

JohnP- Didn't realize Princeton was devoid of "actual experts". Thank you for setting me straight.

mariposssa
09-26-2013, 10:09 PM
I will first admit that I haven't read all of the responses and/or links; but I have considered the research, articles, and video lectures of Dr Robert Lustig. He stated quite clearly in the Sugar: The Bitter Truth lecture (on youtube) that all sugars are not equal in the stomach and especially not in the liver. Fructose is particularly toxic in the liver; more so than other types of sugars and almost equal to alcohol. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That lecture is a long and quite scientific discussion which I listened to in its entirety-88 minutes--admitedly it was several weeks ago. But, I will choose to take my advice from this doctor who specializes in pediatric endocrinology and obesity. I believe him when he says fructose, glucose, sucrose and HFCS are not equal in the body and/or liver. When you are taking advice from the internet; you should definitely consider the source and review the information yourself rather than just from random posters on a forum.

ETA: I believe that sugar is toxic (all of it regardless of type) which is why I limit all types and practice a lowish/moderate carb diet.

Tuscany123
09-26-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm a dual citizen of the US and the UK and have lived extended periods in both countries. If you want the quick answer as to why the UK is not quite as obese as the US look no further than the automobile. When in the UK cars were for trips to the grocery store and long journeys. Other than that we walked everywhere. Even the use of plentiful public transportation required a walk to and from the train station, or from one bus route to the one on another street. The US lifestyle is a much more sedentary one than what I experienced living in the UK. HFCS has nothing to do with it IMO.

JohnP
09-26-2013, 11:19 PM
JohnP- Didn't realize Princeton was devoid of "actual experts". Thank you for setting me straight.

You asked for my thoughts on the study. I gave them. I then linked the thoughts of an actual expert on the same study. Obviously you have not read the Princton study, nor the discection of the study. I was not insinuating that Princeton has no experts. I was merely pointing out that my thoughts are pretty meaningless as I am not an expert.

Speaking of the Princton study, I'm certain Princeton does have plenty of experts but if you actually look at the data in the study you have no choice but to question the conclusion that the blogsphere ran with.

Here are some questions for you. Do you believe that smart people who do studies have no bias? Do you think experts on a topic matter are imune to bias? Do you think sarcasm is a good way to communicate and forward your beliefs?

JohnP
09-26-2013, 11:30 PM
But, I will choose to take my advice from this doctor who specializes in pediatric endocrinology and obesity. I believe him when he says fructose, glucose, sucrose and HFCS are not equal in the body and/or liver. When you are taking advice from the internet; you should definitely consider the source and review the information yourself rather than just from random posters on a forum.

Fortunately no one is saying that fructose, glucose, sucrose and HFCS are equal in the body. That would be a demonstration of ignorance.

The issue at hand in this thread is not sugar, it is HFCS vs sugar. Everyone on this thead agrees that too much sugar or HFCS is bad. Where we seem to disagree is if HFCS is bad in any quantities or not as well as if HFCS is in large part responsible for the obesity epidemic.

As for Lustig, he has done a lot to raise the awareness of sugar which is great. Sadly his video ignores the fact that the dangers of fructose depend entirely on context and dose. I'm not going to bother educating you on the subject. You just go ahead and keep on believing that fructose is evil because Lustig says it is and ignore the evidence that dose and context matter.

mariposssa
09-27-2013, 01:10 AM
This is a basic biochemistry question and the answer is yes - once they hit your stomach they are exactly the same. What happens from there depends.

I'm not ignoring any evidence, I'm disagreeing with you. You specifically said that once they hit the stomach they are exactly the same. You said it several times. I said that the effect is not the same in the liver according to Dr Lustig. You are free to agree or disagree with him or me. Luckily, I earned my degree from an accredited college; so I don't need your opinionated version of an education. I sincerely doubt that your credentials are more impressive than Dr Lustig's.

JohnP
09-27-2013, 01:56 AM
I'm not ignoring any evidence, I'm disagreeing with you. You specifically said that once they hit the stomach they are exactly the same. You said it several times. I said that the effect is not the same in the liver according to Dr Lustig. You are free to agree or disagree with him or me. Luckily, I earned my degree from an accredited college; so I don't need your opinionated version of an education. I sincerely doubt that your credentials are more impressive than Dr Lustig's.

They (sucrose commonly known as table sugar and HFCS) are the same (virtually) once they hit the stomach. That is what I was talking about. The bonding makes no difference because the bonds come undone in the stomach. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 45% glucose and 55% fructose.

No one is saying that glucose is the same as fructose, nor implying it.

I have no idea why you're mentioning my credentials. I have none. I can read, I have common sense. Therefore I know that dose matters. Lustig is talking about fructose but ignoring dose. He is also completely ignoring context.

We're just going around in circles here...

mariposssa
09-27-2013, 03:13 AM
The reason I was talking about your credentals is because you took the condescending tone that you couldn't be bothered to educate me. We are going in circles which is kind of like Alan Aragon and Dr Lustig went in circles on the same topic. Since those experts in their field cannot agree we are not likely to either. We can just assume you will continue your regurgitation of Aragon's critique and I could then respond with Lustig's rebuttals. But, there isn't much point in that.

There is a valid debate in the topic...the experts cannot even agree. Which is why I had a problem with the way you present your arguments. You assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated idiot. You even went so far as to call out the OP and give him an F on his topic which was rude and unnecessary. So, carry on without me and if you run out of talking points from Aragon or his comment section, just attack the intelligence of anyone who dares to have a different opinion. I guess that is one way to "win" a debate.

Wannabeskinny
09-27-2013, 07:48 AM
The reason I was talking about your credentals is because you took the condescending tone that you couldn't be bothered to educate me. We are going in circles which is kind of like Alan Aragon and Dr Lustig went in circles on the same topic. Since those experts in their field cannot agree we are not likely to either. We can just assume you will continue your regurgitation of Aragon's critique and I could then respond with Lustig's rebuttals. But, there isn't much point in that.

There is a valid debate in the topic...the experts cannot even agree. Which is why I had a problem with the way you present your arguments. You assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated idiot. You even went so far as to call out the OP and give him an F on his topic which was rude and unnecessary. So, carry on without me and if you run out of talking points from Aragon or his comment section, just attack the intelligence of anyone who dares to have a different opinion. I guess that is one way to "win" a debate.

Applause! Thank you! I really hate it when someone is trying to make a point and someone else comes along and tries to make people feel stupid.

Am I the only one who does all the reading, takes in all the information and then doesn't give a damn about it? I don't need no stupid study to tell me what's good for me and what's not. You'd have to be an idiot to think that HFCS is good for you or any modified crop or any processed food. I very much align myself with Dr. Lustig's findings. Does that mean I don't eat sugar? Well no it doesn't, and I'm sure Lustig eats sugar too. But the way it's made me understand the effect of sweeteners on my body is priceless. I have come such a long way from feeling worthless and unmotivated, from feeling like my cravings meant that I was flawed, that I was a lazy slob, that I didn't have the ability to change my weight/eating. The knowledge of how sugar affects me let me know exactly that food has a direct impact on my body, on my cravings and on my actions. If I'm jonesing for a cookie it doesn't mean I'm a weak willed person.... it just means I've overloaded on carbs and that overload has led to more cravings.

OP, if you know and believe that HFCS is not good for you or your family, spend the time needed to monitor your family's food. Work with the school board to remove unhealthy foods from the lunch menu, don't buy boxed treats for your kids, we need to generate a society that thinks about what they put in their bodies, rather than continuing to eat junk food and waiting for some miraculous moment where our government is going to take care of us and help us overcome the overexposure to processed foods. When the FDA is in bed with lobbies there's not much being done for us, we must do for ourselves. I sure as heck am not waiting around for someone to tell me HFCS is bad for me or worse than sugar because I don't need that information to make stay away from it.

diamondgeog
09-27-2013, 08:56 AM
Applause! Thank you! I really hate it when someone is trying to make a point and someone else comes along and tries to make people feel stupid.

Am I the only one who does all the reading, takes in all the information and then doesn't give a damn about it? I don't need no stupid study to tell me what's good for me and what's not. You'd have to be an idiot to think that HFCS is good for you or any modified crop or any processed food. I very much align myself with Dr. Lustig's findings. Does that mean I don't eat sugar? Well no it doesn't, and I'm sure Lustig eats sugar too. But the way it's made me understand the effect of sweeteners on my body is priceless. I have come such a long way from feeling worthless and unmotivated, from feeling like my cravings meant that I was flawed, that I was a lazy slob, that I didn't have the ability to change my weight/eating. The knowledge of how sugar affects me let me know exactly that food has a direct impact on my body, on my cravings and on my actions. If I'm jonesing for a cookie it doesn't mean I'm a weak willed person.... it just means I've overloaded on carbs and that overload has led to more cravings.

OP, if you know and believe that HFCS is not good for you or your family, spend the time needed to monitor your family's food. Work with the school board to remove unhealthy foods from the lunch menu, don't buy boxed treats for your kids, we need to generate a society that thinks about what they put in their bodies, rather than continuing to eat junk food and waiting for some miraculous moment where our government is going to take care of us and help us overcome the overexposure to processed foods. When the FDA is in bed with lobbies there's not much being done for us, we must do for ourselves. I sure as heck am not waiting around for someone to tell me HFCS is bad for me or worse than sugar because I don't need that information to make stay away from it.

I could not agree more about understanding sugar/carbs and the effects it had. I could never understand how I could have a huge 1000 calorie plus meal at a fast food restaurant and be hungry so soon again. It was difficult for a bit to lower my carbs, but so worth it. We don't buy bread or pasta anymore. I haven't had a candy bar or much fast food since May. Fries maybe 3 times, but not as many as before, a shared small Five Guys with 3 people. Whereas before I probably had a medium by myself.

In any event the last 100 years is riddled with products that have turned out to be deadly. Often the industries know about it, but of course, profits overrule everything. I don't know HFCS is in this category, but as pointed out avoiding HFCS means avoiding a lot of processed food so it is a good thing anyway.

I will say to JohnP that dose and context matter. Speaking of context, I am not a biochemist, but I am not willing to say that HFCS is just different in the 55% to 50%. Way too many unknowns to say that is the only difference. Besides industry has no qualms about putting out 60% to 65% HFCS and even as high as 90% HFCS.

I personally don't think the lower cost was the whole story. I think industry found something even more addictive (sweeter) than sugar and ran with it for all the dollar signs in the world. And it was/is part of the obesity and diabetes 'epidemic'.

JohnP
09-27-2013, 11:56 AM
It is baffling to me that anyone could have done any amount of reading with an open mind and come to the conclusion that context and dose do not make the poison in regards to HFCS because it is essentially the same thing as sugar.

Too much fructose is a bad thing. Too much is the part that Lustig doesn't talk about. Fructose is not only in HFCS, it is in sucrose. If your diet has too much sugar you're going to have a bad time. How much sugar is too much depends. It's called context. This is not complicated, at all. Where the experts disagree is in how much is too much. Only a few "experts" like Taubes go so far as to say any sugar is bad.

JohnP
09-27-2013, 12:04 PM
I will say to JohnP that dose and context matter.

Step 1 to blogsphere headline recovery is admitting a simple truth is true.

I've been where you were a couple years ago. The more you learn about the diet/health industry the more you'll find that many highly educated experts forget this simple truth.

If you like this subject I would strongly suggest you spend $10 over at AARR which gives you access to all the research review Alan Aragon has done to date. He discusses the strengths and weaknesses of headline grabbing studies and what they tell us and their limitations.

diamondgeog
09-28-2013, 08:20 AM
JohnP you misconstrued my context comment somewhat. First to admit overall sweetener consumption is key. But i continue to think there is much more to the context of HFCS than just 55% or often 60% plus fructose. To you it seems that is all, to me it is a Franken-sweetener until proven otherwise.

Wannabeskinny
09-28-2013, 08:38 AM
...To you it seems that is all, to me it is a Franken-sweetener until proven otherwise.

I think you will have to leave it at that. Some people (like me) don't need a lot of proof or too many studies to convince me that chemically manufactured goods aren't good for me. Other people need a lot of proof. Like I was saying, it's not necessary to convince others, as long as you can convince your family then you've done a lot of good in the world.

novangel
09-28-2013, 10:18 AM
Everything in moderation. I can eat foods containing HFCS and get fat, I can still eat HFCS and get thin. All depends on calories and portion control.

JohnP
09-28-2013, 12:05 PM
JohnP you misconstrued my context comment somewhat. First to admit overall sweetener consumption is key. But i continue to think there is much more to the context of HFCS than just 55% or often 60% plus fructose. To you it seems that is all, to me it is a Franken-sweetener until proven otherwise.

I don't disagree with you. I merely think that mercury contamination and greater than 55% concentration in HFCS are a seperate conversation which is why I haven't been addressing them. No question - if manufacturers of HFCS are contaminating the product with mercury or going over the max allowed fructose content they should be punished/penalized or shut down.

To be clear - when I say context I mean that in the sense of the individual. Two extreme examples would be Kaplods for whom even a small amount of sugar is bad - on the other end would be a bodybuilder doing a carb load and might consume 150g of sugar in a day.

diamondgeog
09-28-2013, 11:05 PM
That is true. I am on the more carb reactive side. I have a co-worker who eats I am not kidding a half dozen donuts daily and mass fast food. He is in his 50s. Not sure how healthy he is but he has a flat stomach and is not overweight.

But for most people and probably him (he goes to doctors a lot so not exactly healthy) as well carbs are a huge health burden. And HFCS adds more unknowns.

Annik
10-03-2013, 02:36 PM
Just noticed cautionary notes about hfcs on the 3 Fat Chicks Home page -- ie, avoid HFCS!