Finally, some solid proof that high fructose corn syrup isn't the same as sugar, even "in moderation."

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a...ion=topstories

Well, I'm always hesitant to draw firm conclusions based on studies done in rats. Rats and people aren't always the same, especially in terms of metabolism.

Still, it's nice that there's solid proof that these things are not identical, even if there's no proof of what happens in humans as yet. They cannot be the same substance if rats react to them differently.

Wonder what the HFCS commercials will be now!

We can only dream of a new, updated pro-High Fructose Corn Syrup propaganda commercial in which the pro-HFCS woman tries to offer a popsicle to one of the Princeton study reseach lab technicians.

Smarmy looking mom: "Oh, you really must not care about what you're feeding your kids! That fluorescent orange drink has high fructose corn syrup!"

Confident looking mom: "And?"

Smarmy looking mom: "Well, you know what the Princeton researchers found!"

Confident looking mom: "Are you saying your kids are rats? I think you just called your kids rats"

Smarmy looking mom: "..."

Confident looking mom: "Rats. Just saying".

Interesting trivia:

I bought an old Woman's Day magazine (1980) in a thrift store (for a crochet pattern that was on the cover), and was reading the articles.

Inside was an article advocating high fructose syrups as sugar-replacements, because they were sweeter per calorie than other sugars, and therefore (the logical conclusion was that it would be) a weight loss aid.


One thing to remember though with the rat studies, is that rats can't go shopping for food, can't decide on and stick to a calorie budget, experiment with different food plans, or write in their little food journals to discover patterns they'd like to change, and then experiment and evaluate those changes.

It's far more likely that a human being could incorporate HFCS into a healthy diet, than a rat. How can it be done? How difficult is it? Is it worth the effort? All of those are part of the equation that can't be determined with rat studies.


For example, the study that showed that aspartame-sweetened water increased rat's appetite for sweet foods (compared to unsweetened water).

This study has been used to support arguments that weren't even addressed in the study. For example "eat real sugar, because aspartame makes you hungrier than "real sugar." That WAS NOT studied. Regular sugar may trigger the sweet tooth as much or more.

I do use artificial sweeteners, and I do recognize that they might intensify sweet cravings - but unlike a rat I can stick to my exchange plan/calorie limit. If I couldn't monitor my food intake, it would be a bigger issue, but since I can it's an entirely different issue.

.

Well, rat or no rat, I for one try to avoid HFCS and go for the natural stuff when I am craving something sweet. It would be interesting to see research with human subjects next.

Most of my diet is unprocessed, or low-processed (like frozen or canned vegetables, I rinse or soak before eating to remove the sodium) whole foods, but I'm not worried about hfcs if it's the tenth ingredient or if it's something I eat less than once a month.

Most of the processed foods I eat regularly are reduced-calorie items, for which the tradeoffs are acceptable to me. Sugar free jello and sugar free drink mixes are not health foods. They're entirely empty calories, and not only not real food, they're not foods at all. I hate that they're so intensely colored that I risk staining my skin and clothes when making them. It may be harmless, but it's entirely aggravating (I would love for non or less-colored options to be more readily available at affordable prices).


I think that the fear of hfcs is not proportional to the actual risk. I have friends who won't touch anything with hfcs (even as the tenth ingredient), but eat a diet so high in sugars I'm surprised there's room for any other food.

I also have a dieting friend who recently decided to buy only organic, but buys essentially organic junk-food. She'd be better off (in my opinion) with non-organic fruits and vegetables and without the organic snack foods and trail mixes (especially when trying to lose weight).

Many of the "scary" sounding additives are perfectly safe and beneficial, and some whole food options are not. Self-education isn't difficult, but it is time-consuming so "don't eat anything you can't pronounce" becomes a maxim that stands in for real knowledge (and may work most of the time).

Unfortunately, it's not fool-proof. It's not an axiom I can live by, as I've had just enough organic chemistry in high school and college that I can pronounce most chemical compounds, and yet was mispronouncing quinoa for months before I learned it was keenwah and not queenohah.

Kaplods, you are FUNNY!!!

Mandalinn, I laughed so hard, but I fear you're right. Probably they'll pull the anti-intellectual card or the elitist card.

"Those elitist smart@ss Princeton researchers don't have any common sense. Anyone who's anti-popsicle is un-American and has no Family Values. They're Not Like Us Regular Folks. Us Regular Folks eat High Fructose Corn Syrup all the time. Because it's natural. It's American. It helps support the U.S. economy. It supports the troops overseas. Eat More High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's an important part of being a regular, lovable, overweight American. Not a thin, elitist, smarmy, unlovable American."

Or something like that.