And it's HFCS free!!
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
Yes, and this is a good point. The left, however, instead of trying to educate the masses to make good decisions, attempts to force the government to "do something about it."
Educate me, don't legislate me.
|
“Educate me, don’t legislate me.”
I agree totally.
Refined sugar and white flour are no better for us than high-fructose corn syrup. I don’t go around and make a huge fuss about it, though; I just don’t buy most foods that contain said ingredients.
And it's HFCS free!!
On the subject of corn syrup and sugar, the best way to deal with the issue of prices is to do away with price supports.
And just where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to establish a Department of Agriculture anyway!
That is one behaviour that separates conservatives from liberals. A great behaviour, I might add.
You see, thats my problem with the HFCS hysteria. Fact is, plain ole "natural" sugar has almost as much Fructose as HFCS. Its nearly as bad, and we eat too much of it as well.
The funny thing is that fructose IS the more natural sugar. Cane sugar is the outlier; most fruits and other natural sweets have more fructose than sucrose. Or is there something else about corn fructose that makes it uniquely bad for you?
In this country, HFCS use hit twenty percent around 1980.
The Science Behind the Sweetener
We don’t have to wait for the government to tell us what to eat. The food processors are already doing it to us. The solution, prepare your own food from scratch. Try to eat half of it raw. Your body will thank you. People know/care more about feeding their cars, than feeding themselves, and we wonder why there is so much chronic illness.
An unintended side effect is having more cash to buy gold, lead, silver and other things we will need to keep ourselves healthy. Self reliance is a wonderful thing.
What I get a kick out of is the way they give it a scary set of initials to make it sound artificial: HFCS. No, it’s not corn syrup anymore, it’s HCFS. If we called sucrose, RCSS (Refined Cane Sugar Syrup), I bet we could make people scared of it, too.
Yes, but they are frequently the only reason to start decent human studies.
For all we can tell from this, the HFCS may appeal far more to the rat sense of taste than does sucrose (to humans the two have approximately the same flavor).
HFCS is about ten percent lighter in weight for the same amount of sweetness, IIRC.
Also can rats efficiently digest sucrose the way humans can?
I don't know, but they way humans digest it, it's not very good. This paper was a real eye opener. You should read it.
Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia
I probably only read the abstract of the next citation.
Fructose Consumption as a Risk Factor for Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
yah, yah, yah.
Just make sure you have a couple of gallons of HFCS in your emergency pantry. Some day it may be worth more than you think...
I never was a big HFCS imbiber but a few years ago I totally eliminated it. Feel much better.
We make everything we eat from scratch. Much, much better. Way cheaper, save money, don’t eat as much, have less trash, don’t need to shop as often, eat for health and not just cause it tastes good, taste buds get more sensitive so simple foods taste satisfying, etc.
Check the links in comment# 33. At least try to read the abstracts if you haven't seen them before.
FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.
UnSALTED gravy, perhaps, comrade.
I’d like to know who interviewed the rat about the flavor of the two sweeteners, though the human results might suggest why the rat likes HFCS better than sugar.
Standard digestive dogma as I learned in high school biology was that ptyalin in the mouth and digestion in the gut resulted in sucrose becoming a mix of glucose and fructose. Unlike the case with some people vis a vis the disaccharide lactose, there is no widely known problem with sucrose persisting in the gut and feeding gas generating bacteria. Yet the anecdotes undeniably abound about HFCS being worse for health than an equivalent sweetening amount of table sugar.
We banished HFCS from our home about a year ago. My husband & I immediately lost weight and kept it off. We banned it when we read that HFCS sometimes has traces of Mercury as a result of manufacturing methods: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
Correlation does not imply causation with regard to the weight loss, but it is good enough for us. It’s on our list of no-nos now and will remain there as we are both convinced that it is very bad for people.
More and more companies are responding to concerns and are removing HFCS from their products, which can’t be a bad thing: http://adage.com/article?article_id=138583 That was written last year. The list has grown by leaps and bounds since then.
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.