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
In HFCS-55, the kind used in soft drinks, it's 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. I used to think all 6 carbon sugars are the same. If you check out the first link, you'll learn that fructose can easily go into de novo lipogenesis. So with HFCS-55, you're getting almost 4 moles of fructose for every 3 moles of glucose.
Thanks for the links.
That is definitely over-fructosed compared to ordinary sugar. Funny that pure fructose can be had in “health food stores” as a supposed calorie cutter for culinary purposes. Seems that most people would be better off using ordinary sugar.
***Rat studies are problematic.***
That is why they have started to use lawyers. They react almost the same as humans, but nobody worries about them. PETA doesn’t even care.
I don’t know about the negative health effects of HFCS, but I think it is interesting that it is mostly government intervention that has caused processed food manufacturers to switch to HFCS from sugar. A combination of billions of dollars of subsidies for corn and high tariffs on imported cane sugar causes HFCS to be significantly cheaper than sugar.
I am a little skeptical of this and some similar studies. I would like to know more about why higher fructose content as opposed to sucrose would have this effect. After witnessing the poor behavior of so called “climate scientists”, one has got to wonder about hidden agendas. However several articles that I have read recently have convinced me to try cutting back on my sugar and HFCS intake.
If the Federal Government doesn’t like HFCS, the easiest solution is to end the Sugar Tariffs. Regular cane sugar is used in soda everywhere except the US. Here we use HFCS. That’s because there’s a sugar tariff here which makes cane sugar more expensive than HFCS.
Actually, there's a difference between corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. Sorry I can't find the link, but if you read how they make that stuff, you might want to start reading labels and skipping those items that contain it. I remember they use enzymes/acids to break down the corn cells.
It's a similar process that they use to make quick-cooking/instant oatmeal--did you know they use acid?
HFCS is not like that bottle of corn syrup that you bring out every Thanksgiving and Christmas to make pecan pie or popcorn balls. HFCS is in almost all processed food, from ketchup to juice to cereal to crackers--EVERYTHING.
Congrats on your weight loss! I’ve lost 70 pounds so far, and have another 30 to go. As far as tryglycerides go, I dropped mine from 295 to 150 by taking fish oil, as requested by my doctor. I recommend it. I am trying to eat meat (low fat), veggies of all kinds, and fruit (not juice). I avoid (as much as possible) bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, corn and other high starch foods. I don’t use sugar on anything, but I do have the occasional candy bar or cookie (ok, so I’m not perfect...). It’s working so far :>)
Blaming types of food again. How about blaming the sources of food?! What is the largest source of calories in the US diet? The Government provides food stamps, free school lunches, free school breakfasts and free school meals even when school isn’t in session! None of this is needs tested by the important test, BMI! None of this is regulated to encourage good eating. Meanwhile with obesity sky rocketing the government keeps running PSAs bewailing hunger in America. Too many Americans need to go hungry, often, to regain our health. Many of us could stand a nice famine, which the Lord Obama just might provide.
Corn syrup has been in use since the turn of the last century.
HFCS is a completely different product, suitable only for use as feedstock for ethanol production.
The calorie cutter argument is just a play on the relative sweetness of fructose compared to sucrose. Unless someone is burning lots of calories, excess carbohydrates can be problematic.
Man, you are right! It’s almost impossible to avoid that stuff.
It was also government intervention that caused food manufacturers to switch from natural fats to transfats. Not good.
One of the first commercial transfat products (Crisco) apparently came about as an attempt to produce a long-keeping, aesthetically acceptable culinary equivalent to solid natural fats. That’s at least the impression I got from an old promotional cookbook. If Uncle Sam was pushing this (for reasons other than military food supply) there doesn’t seem to be a clear reason for it.
ANTIBIOTICS ARE A MUST in the rations of CORN FED feedlot cattle.
Corn has ill effects on cattle after so long.
Another reason why they go to the packing house.(the meat you eat).
Yet the public consumes large, vast, every present, great amounts of corn products (in nearly everything) then wonders why they and their children get sick..
Corn fed America
The gov. knows this, but what the heck they say, people do have a choice on what they eat and feed their children..
Have you had your antibiotics treatment today ? /s
Yuck! You can have my share.
This is a lie.
With no other change in lifestyle you cannot eat more calories and lose weight.
Furthermore, this is another reason to end regulation of foodstuffs by government. Sugar tariffs and corn subsidies keep their prices out of sink. Let the market decide.
Exactly, at best we can surmise that rats shouldn’t eat HFCS if they’re worried about weight gain.
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.