Okay, I've got my tomato resistant clothes on, and I'm all ready for the onslaught:
High Fructose Corn Syrup is no worse for you than sugar, and when used in similar moderation as sugar will not cause obesity any faster.
It comes down to this: there are two kinds of "sugars"- fructose and glucose. Table sugar (cane) is made up of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. High Fructose Corn Syrup is made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose. They are very similar chemically, and in fact, since fructose does not cause the same rise in insulin levels, for many people, one could argue that the higher the level of fructose as a percentage, the better.
Some people theorize that since fructose does not cause this increase in hormones, people are less likely to feel "full" and therefore more apt to overeat foods that contain HFCS. Hmm... fructose is found in apples, oranges, pears. I don't see people arguing to take these off of the table. And, since HFCS in foods appear with other substances that DO raise insulin levels, one should not completely miss out on the "full" phenomenon.
So, my argument is this: if 2 items each contain the same number of calories of "sweetener", one of which has cane sugar and the other HFCS, there is no dietary or nutritional reason to choose one over the other.
"Sucrose, a natural substance derived from beets or sugar cane, is comprised of bonded molecules of glucose and fructose. HFCS is not natural. It’s manufactured from cornstarch, using a process developed in Japan in 1971. HFCS is made up of glucose and frucose molecules, unlinked."
"High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose, and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. It all sounds rather simple—white cornstarch is turned into crystal clear syrup. However, the process is actually very complicated. Three different enzymes are needed to break down cornstarch, which is composed of chains of glucose molecules of almost infinite length, into the simple sugars glucose and fructose.
First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Alpha-amylase is industrially produced by a bacterium, usually Bacillus sp. It is purified and then shipped to HFCS manufacturers.
Next, an enzyme called glucoamylase breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose. Unlike alpha-amylase, glucoamylase is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat where one would likely see little balls of Aspergillus floating on the top.
The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase, is very expensive. It converts glucose to a mixture of about 42 percent fructose and 50-52 percent glucose with some other sugars mixed in. While alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry, pricey glucose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it. Inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are used only once, glucose-isomerase is reused until it loses most of its activity.
There are two more steps involved. First is a liquid chromatography step that takes the mixture to 90 percent fructose. Finally, this is back-blended with the original mixture to yield a final concentration of about 55 percent fructose—what the industry calls high fructose corn syrup."
HFCS is not natural sugar like the sugar found in an orange. It's man-made. Basically, I don't like to eat processed stuff and avoid it as much as I can. I have absolutely no proof it's bad for me, but my goal is to eat as many whole foods as possible and avoid as many processed foods as possible.
I'm not really worried about it making me obese. I don't think sugar is evil, I would happily put honey in my tea. I don't want it because it's fake and I don't trust food manufacturers to do what's best for me when they can save a buck.
Glory87: You are right, I absolutely agree that HFCS is not something that people can find growing or laying around in the environment, and in that sense it is man-made. And if one is arguing that people should only eat foods that aren't man-made, then certainly HFCS would be on that list: along with flour, soy sauce, processed cheese, etc. etc.
However, my argument is not that "HFCS's are a natural food and should be sold by the bottle at the local Open Harvest". My argument is that when an item contains HFCS as an ingredient, and you switch that ingredient with sugar, you are not gaining any dietary benefit as far as weight control is concerned. (And vice versa with detriment.) There seems to be an increase in HFCS watching, with the idea that somehow by eliminating this from your diet losing weight will be easier, or that by not avoiding it losing weight will become harder.
In effect, it has become the "bad boy" of the current obesity trend, ignoring the fact that our portions have grown so much larger and our exercize so much more infrequent. I contend that if we still ate and exercized now as we did 50 years ago we would have that decade's obesity rate, even if we were using HFCS in today's ratio of sweetener.
Oh, and I contend that there is no inherent nutritional value in cane sugar (other than it's energy value), so there is no "loss" in nutrition by the switch to HFCS.
Glory86: Oh, and as an asside I just wanted to say that I have a great amount of respect for the value you put to eating healthy food! I love reading your posts and I never disagree with your outlook (I just don't always make the same choices ).
There are some schools of thought that HFCS is processed differently than normal sugar and affects the body's ability to regulate fullness (which can lead to obesity). I don't know if I agree with it 100%, but I don't think stating the calories in HFCS = the calories in sugar is an "apples to apples" comparison based on what the body does with it. I would want to know more before I accepted that consuming HFCS is just like consuming the sugar found in fruit.
"But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.
The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat."
"Despite the food industry's arguments that sugar is sugar, whether fructose or sucrose, no group "has yet refuted the growing scientific concern that, when all is said and done, fructose ... is about the furthest thing from natural that one can imagine, let alone eat."
"Other studies by researchers at UC Davis and the University of Michigan have shown that consuming fructose, which is more readily converted to fat by the liver, increases the levels of fat in the bloodstream in the form of triglycerides.
And unlike other types of carbohydrate made up of glucose, fructose does not stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin. Peter Havel, a nutrition researcher at UC Davis who studies the metabolic effects of fructose, has also shown that fructose fails to increase the production of leptin, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells.
Both insulin and leptin act as signals to the brain to turn down the appetite and control body weight. And in another metabolic twist, Havel's research shows that fructose does not appear to suppress the production of ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger and appetite"
Does HFCS have the same number of calories as table sugar, sure. Can transfat margarine have the same number of fat grams as an natural peanut butter, sure. Does the body treat it the same? Definitely not.
I don't know if studies have proved that HFCS is really harmful, but I think the studies have made me cautious.
"
Researchers are beginning to sound the alarm on HFCS. "There's no question that the rise in HFCS consumption has paralleled a rise in both obesity and diabetes," says physician Gross, who authored the study linking HFCS to diabetes. "A relatively new body of evidence points to the potential negative health consequences of consuming HFCS." One possible link between HFCS, obesity, and diabetes is the way our bodies process fructose. Normally, eating sweet foods stimulates insulin, a hormone that converts sugar to glucose (the form of sugar that cells burn for energy).
As your body's energy needs are met, insulin triggers cells to produce leptin, a hormone that signals fullness. The problem with fructose is that it doesn't stimulate insulin to the same degree that other sugars do, which means that the body doesn't release leptin.
"Leptin controls our sensitivity to fullness," says Peter J. Havel, PhD, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, who has done crucial work in examining fructose's relationship to weight gain. "The more fructose in a meal, the less insulin you'll secrete," he adds.
Heart disease is also a potential concern. When sugar bypasses insulin, it's converted to fat. As Havel points out, fructose seems to drive up the levels of blood fats called triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease."
The respect is definitely mutual, I love to read your posts!
I don't use real sugar or HFCS - mainly because neither has a flavor strong enough to limit how much it can be used - you can sneak sugar into ANYTHING. Brown sugar, on the other hand, has deeper flavor, as do maple syrup, molasses, etc, so they tend to self-limit how much you can use...they also make foods taste RICHER rather than just sweeter. Corn syrup and sugar don't have that self-limiting quality, so I try to limit both as much as possible in favor of sweeteners with a more natural cut off point.
Just one thing to point out though: fructose IS natural. It's found in fruits and honey. For years it was touted as THE sweetener to go for, especially for diabetics, but for dieters as well. (My mom was a big beliver in it when I was a child.) I just think it's funny when "the theory" changes so drastically over the years. (Look at the history of salt and egg recommendations, for example.)
I bet if I ran the study, I could show a correlation between the number of american's who own a personal computer, or the number of cell phones per capita and obesity rates. Just like HFCS, they were first "on the market" 15-20 years ago, and their use has steadily increased along with our weight issues. This is the problem with correlation studies, without backup studies to show cause and effect, you can't really rule out coincidental timing. From there it's easy to find theories as to the link: people with computers spend less time moving and therefore become obese. Could be true, but without a more indepth study....?
I'm not a member of the HFCS promotion board... and actually I'd much rather use sugar because I think it tastes better and I do most of my cooking from scratch. (I don't keep much HFCS around the house. ) The main issue I have is with the fear and the fuzzy logic behind it.
I guess I'm just waiting for all of the reports 10 years from now about how sugars high in fructose are the latest trend towards health....
I agree that correlation studies are pretty much crap. However, I also think HFCS is bad news. Sure, some HFCS is 45% glucose, 55% fructose, but some HFCS can actually be up to 85% fructose. That study with the rats (which I have read before in doing my own research) was the kicker for me. I feel that most stidues involving rats are inaccurate simply because yeah, if you give a tiny animal like a rat more than a human's size serving of something, then it's going to cause issues--duh. However, in this study, comparable amounts of sucrose and fructose were used, so I would think bad things should have happened to both groups of rats. However, much worse things happened to the fructose group.
Now, if we were only getting fructose from fruits and actual sugar or honey, that would be one thing, but all of a sudden, nearly EVERYTHING we consume has a higher percentage of fructose in it. Everything--bread, ketchup, yogurt, snack foods, soda, juice...An increase of 5% fructose may not sound like much when you compare one tablespoon of sucrose to one tablespoon of HFCS, but think of how many things they're sneaking HFCS into and multiply that by the seemingly minor additional 5% (sometimes more, though, depending on the HFCS).
I'm not saying HFCS made us Americans fat--lord knows there are PLENTY of contributing factors to our weight issues, not just one thing to blame. But I am saying that I will avoid this UNnatural, processed product when I can (not ALWAYS, but when I can). Everything in moderation, but HFCS is in SO many things that people don't always realize they're getting so much. I mean, products with Splenda, NutraSweet, or Sweet N Low often have the logo right on the front of the package, so people who want to avoid them can do so more easily. I've yet to see an advertisement exclaiming, "Made with high fructose corn syrup!" in big bold letters, and I think there's a reason for that
well according to 7-up, High Fructose Corn Syrup is all natural, because its the second ingredient in their "all natural" version. They advertise 5 ALL-natural ingredients. Personally I'm not sure how man made = all natural but what do I know? I just found it interesting that they can get away with saying it.
well according to 7-up, High Fructose Corn Syrup is all natural, because its the second ingredient in their "all natural" version. They advertise 5 ALL-natural ingredients. Personally I'm not sure how man made = all natural but what do I know? I just found it interesting that they can get away with saying it.
The same way Splenda manufacturers can get away with saying things like, "Tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar," even though the "sugar" part is the furthest thing from natural sugar because it's been so heavily chimcally alterred That's like saying a cake is yummy because it's made from salt--it's just not true! There's a pinch of salt, but a load of other ingredients that are more important, which is the case with Splenda.
I'm not saying HFCS made us Americans fat--lord knows there are PLENTY of contributing factors to our weight issues, not just one thing to blame. But I am saying that I will avoid this UNnatural, processed product when I can (not ALWAYS, but when I can). Everything in moderation, but HFCS is in SO many things that people don't always realize they're getting so much.
I agree our obesity can't be blamed on any one thing.. It's like the movie "Perfect Storm". So many things have come together all at once to create this crisis.
preservatives
TRANS-FATS
HFCS
sedentary lifestyle with convenience items.. lots and lots of labor savers
city planning that is not pedestrian and bicycle friendly
parks ...close to our homes
busy lifestyles
instant give it to me now expectations with everything
aggressive marketing tactics especially for junk foods
We gotta do something before the ship sinks. Cutting out transfats and hfcs and lots of other junk from our diet is the least I could do for my family.
I agree whole heartedly with Mandalinn. Sweetners with taste and aroma keep us from using too much. When I make a dish that requires sugar if I add honey instead I am more apt to be careful not to use too much. Not just because I don't want the dish to be too sweet but because the honey will overpower the dish if I use too much. It is also much more expensive that sugar.
well according to 7-up, High Fructose Corn Syrup is all natural, because its the second ingredient in their "all natural" version. They advertise 5 ALL-natural ingredients. Personally I'm not sure how man made = all natural but what do I know? I just found it interesting that they can get away with saying it.
Though not any better or worse nutritionally than plain table sugar, high fructose corn syrup is spawned from a complex, multistep industrial process by which starch is extracted from corn and converted with acids or enzymes into glucose and fructose.
“Pretending that soda made with high fructose corn syrup is ‘all natural,’ is just plain old deception,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “High fructose corn syrup isn’t something you could cook up from a bushel of corn in your kitchen, unless you happen to be equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, and buckets of enzymes.”
My emphasis added. It's interesting to me that the Center for Science in the Public Interest - one of the fiercest food watchdog groups and the same group that's suing KFC over transfats - doesn't consider HFCS to be worse than regular sugar.
That is interesting, Meg. But what will these food manufacturers do if consumers start being more fussy and choosing foods without transfats and HFCS. Lions and Tigers and Bears.
I am appalled that because these additives are cheap, add "flavor" to our foods, and help foods maintain a longer shelf life (I didn't realize HFCS helps prevent freezer burn and that is why it is in so many frozen foods!... I am appalled that because of all of these "benefits" the better public health is swooshed away under the rug. I am even more appalled that we are not allowed to teach this in our schools. OUR SCHOOL food service is loaded with this stuff. Not to mention junk food companies that sponsor school events. I feel like I am part of a drug ring every time I send my students to lunch.
Let me get off this soapbox before I fall off or someone pushes me off.
Jayde, you have to read Food Politics, I'm reading it right now and it is just amazing some of the things companies get away with. The book talks about something I hadn't really considered, the USA produces far more food than anyone can eat. So, to increase sales they only have a couple of options, one of those options is getting people to eat MORE.
I'm reading this really interesting section about the evolution of the "food pyramid" and how lobbyists from the meat industries fought really hard for the wording to not say "reduce consumption of saturated fats like beef" to say "increase consumption of lean meat." That's just one example from the book, it's so interesting!
High Fructose Corn Syrup Debate
).
