Posted on 04/20/2010 8:39:41 PM PDT by neverdem
A new Princeton University study is raising new questions about the influence that the long-term consumption of high fructose corn syrup (hfcs) might be having on our country's obesity epidemic.
In a study published online on Feb. 26 by Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior journal, researchers from Princeton University studied rats and hfcs.
The study found rats that consumed water sweetened with hfcs, in addition to a diet of rat chow, gained "significantly more weight" than rats who consumed water sweetened with regular table sugar and rat food.
Interestingly enough, the concentration of the hfcs in the rats' water was only about half of what is found in most sodas, while the concentration of the table sugar water was equal to most sodas. How about them apples?
According to the study, every single rat in the hfcs group became obese compared to the table sugar group. Those hfcs-fed rats didn't just get fat. In addition to the weight gain, the hfcs-fed rats also experienced abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and an increase in circulating blood fats called triglycerides, which increases risk of heart attack, stroke, heart disease, pancreatitis and other ailments.
This study was the first of its kind to examine the long-term health effects of high fructose corn syrup. The results should fly in the face of people from the corn industry who have been saying that hfcs is no different than any other sweetener.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the obesity rates in the United States have skyrocketed since the introduction of hfcs 40 years ago.
Granted, this isn't the only factor in the obesity epidemic because daily activity has also been on the decline since the 1970s. But we can't ignore that hfcs is a cheap and easy way to produce sweetener that has found its way into virtually every type of food and drinks including juice drinks, sodas, breads, cereals, cookies and frozen meals.
In my experience, while my typical client isn't really eating more volume than Americans were 40 years ago, they are eating more processed, calorie-dense foods that contain high amounts of hfcs.
When we eliminate these foods from their diet and replace them with whole food selections, while actually increasing their caloric intake, they lose weight.
So is this study the final word in the high fructose corn syrup debate?
No, but it does give a strong point of focus on what some of the factors are that influence obesity in the United States. Hopefully, we will see more research like this, and we'll finally start to get this problem under control. And hopefully, we'll then reverse the trend.
What we can't have is certain people in the food industry continuing to misinform the public, and deny any link between their products and our nation's physical condition.
I've heard some of these people say that we have a choice to eat what we want, but do we really? With marketing budgets in the billions of dollars, the sales pitch for the unhealthiest, highest profit-making products is being heard loud and clear. Anyone remember the "Eat 5 a Day For Better Health" campaign from the federal health agencies? Probably not. It got buried under ads for things like fast food kid's meals and cookies.
Americans need to eat better and to move more in order to live their best life in the healthiest body possible. It's not a fair fight when our food manufacturers appear to put profits before the health of the people who buy their products and believe that their best interests are being looked after. I would encourage the food industry to take the findings from this and future studies and use it to make better products that will support the health and wellbeing of our nation. The American public deserves the best you have to offer.
Head over to my blog www.hometeamfitnessblog .com to watch a special video sharing a low-calorie snack that you can find in an unlikely place.
Chad Smith is co-owner of Home Team Fitness. Visit his Web site www.hometeamfitnessblog
All the Mexican sodas are made with real cane sugar. HFCS is now illegal in Mexico.
I was unaware of that.
The Mexican sugar growers have strong influence!
.
Homer Simpson on Sugar:
“First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.”
No, my suspicions about HFCS are more based on observation and correlation: As we use more and more HFCS in more and more products, we get fatter.
I am well aware that correlation is NOT causation, but there is much we do not know about how the body metabolizes sugars that come in different proportions than what we have been eating for decades (millenia in the case of honey) before the 1980's, when HFCS use and obesity both increased geometrically, and simultaneously.
I understand your frustration with those of us who do not share your lack of concern over this product, but I will continue to keep trying to reduce my use of HFCS until it can be shown to be no more harmful than cane sugar.
You mentioned use of enzymes/acids in producing HFCS and also acids in making instant oatmeal. It was an old encyclopedia, but I read that sulfuric acid was used in plain old sugar manufacture.
One problem I see in much of medical research is the difference between the statistical metrics of research and the actual clinical application. Unless the statistics are done very carefully, we tend to see anomalies as outliers, whereas in a clinical setting, that's where the problem is.
This can apply in various ways. For example, what if the metabolism differs between rats based on genetics or some other factor? By eliminating genetic diversity in a study, we might have chosen a case where an effect might express particularly strongly or weakly, or even in reverse.
And as another example, note that in a clinical setting, if a medication doesn't work, then an alternative is often tried. Those for whom a medication has a paradoxical effect (e.g., an antidepressant that depresses mood in some people) do not continue taking the medication and shouldn't bring down the "score" of efficacy--but in research, a medication that works for half of the people might be seen as having no effect if it's averaged in with those for whom it makes things worse.
I have come to realize that many doctors are not good scientists, and that the pressure for funding leads to overreaching on conclusions.
and wow, I wrote that very poorly. I have non-parallelism, misdirected references, etc. Not sure my points came across...
Then that is another sad commentary on the state of peer review in this country. Peer review is the heart of the system. It should be a positive but it has been corrupted by money just like the research. Not all that long ago, your article never would have seen the light of day.
Do you see how many of these studies employ nothing but the abstract from other studies to build their cases?
Are you being serious? Have you missed all the research today that simply references the abstract rather than the full article? Good grief, the abstracts are the conclusions of the authors. Don't you see a problem with that?
The most strikikng observation in the N&M article was that one less enzyme was needed to yield glycerol, the spine of triglycerides, from the metabolism of fructose, IMHO
Huh? Now it's my turn to not understand what you're saying. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the rates of reaction rather than the number of enzymes? Just because there's one less reaction (enzyme) doesn't mean it's going to be faster (as you suggested in Post #99). That doesn't make sense. Again, the rates of reaction are much more important than the number of steps. Some rates of reaction are slow and some are fast.
For example: Let's say there are three steps. If step one is rate limiting, the next two steps will only be able to go as fast as the first step will allow. Conversely, If the last step is rate limiting the first two steps can have much higher rates but the last one will control the rate of reaction.
Will it explain why the same problems we have with obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance are occurring in countries that use little, if any, HFCS in their foods?
Great. Now why can't you or the researchers explain why the same problems we have in the US are occurring in India and China where they don't consume nearly the amount of fructose we do? The authors admit that this is happening and then ignore it. I can understand why they want to ignore it. It hurts their argument, such as it is, against fructose.
They probably have the same problem with explaining why obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance are growing problems in Great Britain and Mexico when they use little, if any, HFCS in their food products. That fact throws a wrench in any condemnation of HFCS.
The authors of your article also mention lack of exercise should be an important consideration but then ignore it through the entire article.
These facts alone should have prevented this research from ever being published - that is, if peer review was what it should be today.
Here's a link to the abstract.
Thanks. I'll look through it when I have the time. I have to admit though, I am not encouraged there will be anything important in the article given your track record so far. The article you regularly link that attempts to blame fructose for obesity is riddled with holes. I also recall you posting another article once that tried to refute that the dose makes the poison even though this has been established fact for many, many years now. As I remember, they attacked this long held understanding on the basis that what they found for the frog is not what they found for the tadpole. Well, the physiology of the tadpole is a long way from the physiology of the frog. I recall wondering how something like that ever gets published in the first place and why someone would post it and then defend it here. Is this new article more of the same?
Do you believe scientific conclusions come from "consensus" or do you believe that "consensus" is pseudoscience and that anyone engaged in it, like the AGW crowd, should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism?
Red herring? Please don't tell me you believe that science is conducted by consensus. Any scientist worth the paper his diploma is written on knows that science isn't determined by consensus. There is no such thing. It is either fact or it is not. That's it. You, the authors of your article and the promoters of AGW all think alike. AGW is a farce and a scam, and the peer review process whitewashed it. Here is another example of why the peer review process is badly broken today.
The authors of your article claim conclusions on the syndrome by "consensus". In the past, peer review would have killed any chance of this research being published by this fact alone.
Now, let's go back to the claim your authors made that there is no feedback mechanism for fructose to go back to glycogen and that what isn't used in the Krebs cycle immediately gets turned into fat. We know that glucose can go back to being glycogen so that not all glucose will become fat. Contrary to the views held by the authors, fructose can also go back to being glycogen once it becomes a two carbon fragment. If you fed carbon 14 labeled fructose to a lab rat and then, after a few hours (this depends, of course, on the metabolic state of the animal), you harvested the liver and isolated the glycogen from the liver, you'd find radioactive carbon. The pathway exists even if your article claims otherwise.
Again, in the past, peer review would have ensured this opinion of theirs would never have seen the light of day. But here it is again, and again and again.
Maybe you should explain to us why this ratio is of any importance. Is there some relationship between glucose and fructose when taken together we should be aware of?
My understanding of your concerns is that we're getting too much fructose in our diet and it is causing us to suffer from all sorts of maladies. I also understand from your posts that you believe HFCS is a big contributor to this problem. The focus, then, should be on the fact that HFCS 55 gives us 5 points more fructose than sucrose, not the ratio of fructose to glucose in HFCS. I'm asking if that additional percentage (5%) is responsible for all the afflictions you attribute to increase fructose consumption? You won't answer that question and, instead, go back to the difference in amounts of fructose and glucose in HFCS. Why should that even matter?
Anyone believing that the small amount of additional fructose we get from HFCS 55 (vs. sucrose) is causing all these alleged problems with obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance isn't thinking clearly.
Do you think sucrose is bad for us because it's comprised of 50% fructose?
HFCS 55 is used primarily in beverages. HFCS 42 (only 40% fructose apparently) is used extensively in processed foods and baked goods. Given your beliefs, will you admit that this version of HFCS is much better for us than sucrose? I've asked you this question before but you ignored it. Why?
Many years ago I was a fairly successful bicycle road racer and competed in numerous events of over a hundred miles and have ridden over 200 miles in a day on some occasions. Unfortunately, I am now much older and fatter.
Heart rate monitoring was one of the most important developments for training for and competing in long distance cycling. I was befuddled as to how anyone came up with the arbitrary number of 120 for fat burning. I did concede that as you use up your body's stores of carbohydrates and a higher and higher percentage of your energy is coming from your stored fat, it becomes more and more difficult to keep up a good pace. If in addition you let yourself become dehydrated you can bonk and even become unable to finish your event.
But I can assure you that my coworkers would not take my experience with this type of situation into account at all and instead went off on a completely different tangent. I received a detailed account of the intricacies of the Atkins diet and numerous other strange explanations, but absolutely nothing that gave any connection to this arbitrary 120 pulse rate limit for “fat burning”.
I had no more success than in our last conversation about their firmly held belief Kirkland frozen lasagna is much less healthy than their prefer ed meal of half cooked 3/4 pound bacon cheese burgers slathered liberally with mayonnaise and served with tater tots, with a side salad that generally has more dressing than lettuce. In that conversation I tried to point out that the Lasagna meal has around 20 grams of fat as compared to around a 100 grams of fat in the burgers and associated side portions. We are looking at 600 calories as compared 1800 or more.
What do you say when your coworker who asks for advice... claims to be trying to lose weight by eating healthy... and then pours half a bottle of thousand island dressing on top of their bowl of salad? Then they take half a dozen nutritional supplements and wash them down with a big gulp of Mountain Dew and several large chocolate chip cookies for desert. If one tries to reason with them using common sense, these discussions often turn into maddening arguments.
How is that even possible?
The body recognizes the sucrose as food. Sends a “stop eating or drinking” signal to the brain, the mouth.
No, that's not how it works at all. Satiation is mediated in the blood. The mechanisms for satiation are controlled by hormones, not enzymes. Hormones control enzymes.
Ban TAFLAs!!!!
Because it was used in the process. Why is mercury found in tuna? Why is raney nickel found in vegetable oil, why are all sorts of dangerous chemicals found in decaffeinated and roasted coffee? Why is paint stripper (limonene) found in orange juice? Why is arsenic found in potatoes? Why is benzene found in the air we breathe?
The fiber, apparently, delays the absorbion of fructose.
No. Mono-saccharides are absorbed rapidly while the fiber goes straight through the small intestine. Fiber will not inhibit the absorption of fructose.
We don’t really know why, but we are finding more and more how different hfcs is from sugar
Then maybe you can explain how fructose and glucose from HFCS is chemically different from fructose and glucose from hydrolyzed sucrose.
And more study is needed.
Yup. Keep the money flowing. It's better than having to be productive and deliver results like the private sector demands.
I am a member of the hazmat team on our fire department. People do not seem to realize that trace amounts of chemicals generally have no effect on health at all. Arsenic for example is known as deadly poison, however small amounts can be beneficial in the treatment of certain medical conditions.
Just as I said: feelings.
As we use more and more HFCS in more and more products, we get fatter
No, as we consume more calories than we expend, we get fatter. You might want to look up the laws of thermodynamics when you have a few minutes.
but there is much we do not know about how the body metabolizes sugars that come in different proportions than what we have been eating for decades
Nonsense. We know a great deal about how the body metabolizes sugars even if you choose not to admit it or disagree with what we know.
.....before the 1980's, when HFCS use and obesity both increased geometrically, and simultaneously.
But you said before that you were well aware that correlation is not causation. So much for that.
I saw research once that correlated the price of peanuts in Georgia with the amount of rainfall in Fiji. Coincidence? I think not.
I understand your frustration with those of us who do not share your lack of concern over this product
Uh, huh. I don't take your concerns seriously enough to get frustrated by them.
but I will continue to keep trying to reduce my use of HFCS until it can be shown to be no more harmful than cane sugar.
So you will alter your behavior over things you don't understand and can't explain? Doesn't seem rational to me but you do what you want. Get back to me when you can show that fructose and glucose from hydrolyzed sucrose is any different than fructose and glucose from HFCS.
>>>> One theory is that the Sucrase step influences the amount you consume <<<<
>>How is that even possible?<<
It’s not how other satiation pathways have been shown to work, but it’s plausible (in the sense that an undiscovered island populated by unicorns is plausible, but not likely) that there’s an undiscovered psychological response to flavor, wherein consuming more or less of a substance to acheive a similar sensory reward affects consumption of that substance. Not likely though, and it would tend to explain away that one rat study which is the one scientific study out of dozens that HFCS-phobes care about: the rats got used to receiving a certain level of pleasure (in this case from the sweetness), and when it was removed from their diet, they compensated by consuming greater amounts of food. Since 55 HFCS is formulated to approximate sucrose, this would explain away the rat behavior as unanalogous to the issue at hand. (It’s really odd that female rats did not increase their consumption; maybe they were more concerned with their figure?)
Bingo. The money has corrupted much of research. It's unfortunate but true.
Clinical trials would be great; but they're expensive. The anti-salt folks have been claiming since forever that salt increases blood pressure and that countless lives can be saved if we would just start dictating the amount of salt the food industry (foodservice included) can use. These same people run from the issue like roaches from light when the suggestion of randomized clinical trials to prove what they claim is suggested.
Tells you everything you need to know.
>> No, my suspicions about HFCS are more based on observation and correlation: As we use more and more HFCS in more and more products, we get fatter <<
HFCS consumption increased around 1980!
People being obese increased around 1980!
They HAVE TO BE RELATED
Other things which began to increase c. 1980
Use of the internet
Video games
Microwave Ovens
Pirates
Cable television
Pyrotechnic destruction of disco records
House churches
Cell phone usage
That’s right, folks:
HCFS is responsible for the increase in the usage of cell phones!
My God, reading willfully ignorant illogic like I’ve encountered on this thread in a supposed conservative forum like FR makes me fear for the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.