Okay, but if fructose is nutritionally no better or worse than glucose, then why are we naming it as one of the great evils, with trans fats? Maybe we should be working to lower all sugars from our diet, true, but why single out one and not the other?

Ask yourself this: if they removed all of the HFCS, and replaced it with cane or beet sugar (actually with more cane or beet sugar since HFCS has a sweetness value of 117 vs 100) would we really be any better off? If a company developes a loaf of bread that is tasty at 2/3 the cals, but uses HFCS for the sweetener vs sugar (probably to save money) do we walk away? Is that necessary for a balanced, healthy diet?

Are we saying "Let's rely more on herbs and spices and less on just sweet", "let's endorse vacuum packing over sugar for freezer burn prevention", "let's buy fresh bread at a baker instead of sugar-preserved bread at the grocery store" or are we saying "let's get our sweet from glucose and not fructose". And if so, why? For years, applesauce and prune juices/pastes have been used as sweeteners in diet-friendly breads and baked goods (fructose instead of sucrose): have we been making a big mistake?

If someone developes HGCS, are we saved? And if so, what are we being saved from?

From my understanding, fructose is processed by the liver, which in turn causes an increased release of triglycerides (fat) into the blood stream. Also, since it doesn't get processed the same as glucose (no insulin) and supresses the release of leptin, you're more likely to overeat since you don't feel full as easily.
Liver cirrhosis, under-developed organs, cancer (some studies are now leading to the belief that HFCS may be a carcinogen--of course, what isn't nowadays, but still...), higher triglycerides, increased appetite...

I have bread without HFCS. It has brown sugar, which is listed as the 5th ingredient; there are only 3 other ingredients listed before the "may contain 2% or less of the following" ingredients. In my buns that do have HFCS, it's listed 3rd (right after the flour and water) with 6 more ingredients before the "may contain 2% or less of the following" items. I guess in my mind, since HFCS is so cheap and convenient, I think they're using it way more than necessary--both in products that don't really need it and more of it than is necessary in products that do require sweeteners.

Maybe the proportion of glucose to fructose is important--maybe sugar is more easily processed because they're even rather than skewed. I don't know...I don't have all the answers. I do know that, unlike what some people here say, fruit does NOT make me feel full. Whenther it's bananas, strawberries, watermelon, apples...I am always hungry like 10 minutes after having just fruit :dizzy:

I've read more than once that if one were to go on an all-fruit diet, they could still develop diabetes from the sugar. Now, if fructose is used for diabetic foods due to the lack of insulin needed to process it, can anyone explain this? I know this doesn't have anything to do with pro or con HFCS, but the question arose in my mind through research online relating to this discussion.

Studies are showing that HFCS is possibly worse than glucose for all the reasons Jilly listed.

Just because HCFS has the same calorie content as other sugars doesn't mean a thing to me. I could eat 200 calories worth of Hostess cherry snack pie or 200 calories worth of bing cherries. Calorically the SAME value - which is BETTER for me? If my only deciding factor was calories, I would HAPPILY eat 1800 calories of full fat ice cream and ring dings a day.

Glory, that sounds like a good book from Marion Nestle. I've heard quite a bit about her, but never read any of her books. This one sounds like just what I need to read.

Oh, don't go for the ring dings. They're gross. :devil: :devil:

Ok, here is my take: I am a diabetic. I test my glucose levels before and after meals regularly. When I eat a piece of bread with HFCS in it, even a tiny amount, my glucose levels SOAR to dangerous heights. When I eat a piece of bread that I have chosen on the basis of NO HFCS added, it doesn't happen- the rise is normal. There is evidence that HFCS contributes to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance leads to diabetes. Why chance it? (I can tell you from experience that diabetes is a B***CH to live with.) I am not a scientist, but my guess is that as the liver dumps the glucose into the bloodstream, the pancreas quickly tries to secrete enough insulin to handle the rise. In the case of HFCS, it hits the bloodstream fast, and causes too big a rise for the pancreas to handle in a short time. Elevated sugar levels can cause all kinds of problems...even modestly elevated ones can contribute to eye problems, kidney problems, heart problems... Higher insulin levels are like the boy who called wolf to the cells. There is so much insulin the cells tune it out and it takes more and more to get the job of moving sugars into the cells done. Insulin also controls fat storage, which is why people with IR are usually overweight and struggle to lose weight.

There's an outstanding article about HFCS in today's New York Times. A Sweetener With a Bad Rap I think you have to register (it's free) to read the article. I wish I could copy and post the whole thing but can't, due to copyright laws (but I'm allowed to quote a few paragraphs :) ).

The main point of the article is that HFCS has become an easy target in the fight against obesity but there really isn't much science to back up the idea that HFCS is worse for us than plain sugar:

And I thought that this is interesting information about fructose generally:

I hope that everyone who's interested in this topic has a chance to read the article.

Interesting article, Meg.

I deeply respect Walter Willett, but wonder if we can really say that HFCS is as safe as sugar. There is just so much we don't know. At any rate the cheap cost of HFCS and its preservative properties makes it so easy to use it in abundance in certain products or at the very least add it to products that otherwise wouldn't have a sweetner added to it.

I am for foods that are as natural as possible. HFCS and many other preservatives just don't pass my own test. So I do avoid it as much as possible.

Then again... I do use canola oil so I wonder how I pick my battles. :o :dizzy:

I guess in any event we should keep in mind that:

"I don't think it is likely that things would be very different if people consumed increased amounts of either sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup," he said in an interview. "Overconsumption of either sweetener, along with dietary fat and decreased physical activity, could contribute to weight gain." (Dr. Peter J. Havel)

Great posts, Glory (and others). This is great educational stuff. Not only the HFCS but also "natural flavors" -- like ha, probably bunches of chemicals.

Since DH is diabetic, we buy processed foods that are made without additional sweeteners. We really don't need HFCS (or sugar) in our tomato sauce, our orange juice, our salsa, (maybe a little in bread to make the dough rise).
Isn't always easier to find.
Many on this list are prediabetic, or diabetic. They don't need sugar - they need complex carbohydrates.

Sue