Posted on 04/20/2010 8:39:41 PM PDT by neverdem
Does that soda have soylent green
Um...the government wants us to consume HFCS. If it didn't, then the free market would be allowed to work.
Instead, they push us toward HFCS.
Yeah, I think it's amusing how many people are mocking this study as being pro-government, when if anything it's really putting to task the central-planning approach of agricultural subsidies and tariffs.
It's good to see that some note the problem.
DuPont makes HFCS and is headquartered in Delaware and it’s Biden’s fault
I don't know! That sounds an awful lot like government sponsorship of a religious belief. Surely permitting gravy on Sunday violates the separation of church and state.
Thanks to the sugar tarrifs in the US, sugar is more expensive here than anywhere else in the Americas. Currently sugar costs .14 per pound less in Mexico than in the US. We have lost almost all of the large candy manufacturers to Mexico and Canada and the ones that remain here cannot compete on price alone unless they resort to the corn syrup alternative.
Naturally, the Corn Refiners have weighed in and their concerns are legitimate. No one on this thread has bothered to mention that this study from Princeton is contrary to many other studies showing that the metabolism of HFCS is the same as that of sucrose. It isn’t even concordant with many other animal studies that have been conducted, and peer reviewed, over the years.
Even Dr. Marion Nestle is finding fault with the Princeton study and she is absolutely no friend of the industry.
1. The first study used 10 male rats in each group and observed them for 8 weeks. At the end of the study, the rats fed chow alone weighed 462 grams. The rats fed sucrose plus chow weighed 477±9 grams. The rats fed HFCS plus chow weighed 502±11 grams. The authors say the difference between 477 and 502 grams is statistically significant. But these rats were offered the sugars for 12 hours per day. The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.
2. The second study did not compare rats eating HFCS to rats eating sucrose. It just looked at the effects of HFCS in groups of 8 male rats.
3. The third study used female rats (number not given) and observed them for 7 months. At the end of the study period, female rats fed HFCS plus chow for 12 hours a day weighed 323±9 grams. Female rats fed sucrose plus chow under the same conditions weighed 333±10 grams. This result is not statistically significant.
Although the authors say calorie intake was the same, they do not report calories consumed nor do they discuss how they determined that calorie intake was the same. This is an important oversight because measuring the caloric intake of lab rats is notoriously difficult to do (they are messy).
So, I’m skeptical. I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats.
I don't see how they came to the conclusion that HFCS is worse than sucrose from this study when they cannot explain why some rats gained weight while others did not even though they were fed exactly the same amount of calories. Even the authors are perplexed by this problem but promise to address it in their next study. Hoebel said that the goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Huh? Why not? This has always been my contention regarding these threads. If you condemn one you need to condemn the other. Anyway, they have these results but cannot explain why they got them. Maybe there's something here and maybe not. But one thing is certain, the authors have created enough of a stir from this to ensure the grant money will continue flowing thereby keeping them in business for a long time to come.
That's the nature of research. The vast majority of these studies end up being meaningless. Jumping to any conclusions at this point serves no purpose, especially when these findings contradict so much of what past research has shown us. Is this the smoking gun? Only time will tell. They have managed to create enough questions to warrant further study and keep the money coming. Good for them.
As for me poo pooing your feelings.... and that's what they are, aren't they: feelings? Your suspicions about HFCS are based on emotions rather than facts. I have no interest in feelings and prefer to base any discussion on what we know to be true. There is a lot of legitimate research being done on the subject and I have said as much many times on FR. I have cited work being done at Rutgers by Dr. Ho as proof. He's looking at the reactive carbonyls in HFCS and how they might trigger cell and tissue damage that could lead to diabetes. I know Dr. Ho and can attest to the the fact that he's a first class researcher. He may be on to something real here. Of course, there is always the chance that it will end up being meaningless.
You, and many like you, seem to have an agenda against HFCS so every time some evidence shows up to support your "suspicions" you jump on the bandwagon without any interest in the details of the study, the methodology or the fact that so much research today is done to find money rather than the truth. Reading and actually understanding what is being done in the study takes a lot of time, education and experience. Mindlessly bashing an ingredient based on whatever new evidence you manage to find on the internet isn't helpful in any way and is certainly not a method for preventing those who understand this process from poo pooing your emotion driven responses.
Ban RCSS!!!!
Ban CMSS!!!!
Ban DHMO!!!!
Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia
You like offering this paper as a real eye opener in the HFCS debate but you never say why. I believe I read this report some time ago and, if I remember correctly, I had some serious concerns about it. First, I noted that this method of publication requires little if any peer review. Also, the authors claim conclusions on the syndrome by "consensus". There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either proven or not proven. I do not put much faith in publications that talk about consensus and are not subject to thorough peer review.
The fact that fructose does not stimulate insulin production is clear and fructose is metabolized in the liver whereas glucose is largely metabolized in the cells. There is no doubt in my mind that excess consumption of fructose will result in neolipogenesis as will excess glucose consumption. However, they claim that fructose has no feedback mechanism for dietary consumption because of where it enters the citric acid cycle whereas glucose consumption is under control as a result of the hormonal effects on one enzyme in the glycolytic pathway. Is this established fact? Do you even know? Knowing that would be fairly important, don't you think?
I find it interesting that they mention that in India and China, obesity is also on rapid rise yet their diets are not high in fructose as are the western diets. Also, they mention that lack of exercise is an important consideration in their abstract but then proceed to ignore it completely. They are obviously biased toward blaming fructose for the overweight population. How much of this can be accepted as fact and how much is bias is impossible to tell. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with it and I certainly wouldn't use it as evidence or proof of anything. But here it appears again -- and on a recurring basis. Maybe that's because it fits well with your preconceived notions.
To think that the small amount of additional fructose HFCS 55 offers is responsible for all of these maladies requires some serious stretching. If so, you must then believe that HFCS 42 is much better for us than sucrose (where it is being utilized).
In all the discussions demonizing HFCS, no one has been able to explain why countries like Mexico and England, that don't use HFCS in their foods to any extent, are experiencing the same problems with diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome and so on that we are here in the US. Maybe, just maybe, they're doing the same thing we are by shoving more calories into their bodies than they burn because of many factors including a sedentary lifestyle. Maybe obesity is responsible for all these afflictions and this obesity is caused simply by the consumption of more energy than is burned. Same as it has always been. People don't like simple explanations so we are subjected to study after study raising questions while demanding answers and more money.
BAN IMHO!
BAN FWIW!
BAN TTYL!
BAN ROTFLMAO!
Ban BHSO!!!!
Several reality checks:
1. Sucrose converts to Glucose and Fructose before it even reaches your internal systems.
2. 55 HFCS is scantly (5%) more Fructose (55%) than Sucrose (50%). 42 HCFS actually has even less.
3. The infamous rat experiment did not account for rats prefering the sweeter taste occuring in Fructose than Sucrose. The scientific use the terms “significantly more than” does not mean “considerably more than,” but merely that the difference was more than chance error suggests it would likely be. However, since other tests contradicted this experiment, and significance was obtained only be excluding female rats (and all other tests), it could likely be chance, or the rats resulting to more sweetness.
4. Fructose is more “natural” than Sucrose, occurring far more commonly in sweet foods which would comprise a pre-industrial diet, including honey and most fruits including apples, pears, bananas, melons, and citrus.
5. The symptoms of metabolic syndrome detected in the rats are more likely bodily defense mechanisms against blood-sugar toxicity than causes of poor health. Yes, it’s far better to store excess blood sugar as fat than leave it circulating in your body. However, it’s almost certainly a moot point as there is metabolically no distinction between HCFS and sucrose other than taste.
On the other hand,
1. Regardless of the preference of the rats, sucrose tastes much better than HCFS.
Do you have any source for that assertion?
To think that the small amount of additional fructose HFCS 55 offers is responsible for all of these maladies requires some serious stretching. If so, you must then believe that HFCS 42 is much better for us than sucrose (where it is being utilized).
HFCS-55 has 55 parts fructose to 42 parts glucose. That just shy of a 4:3 ratio, almost a third more fructose than glucose.
The paper explains the pathway for de novo lipogenesis quite elegantly, IMHO. Take a gander at the other link in comment# 33 about HFCS's association with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Do you see any requirements for peer review? Do you see how many of these studies employ nothing but the abstract from other studies to build their cases?
HFCS-55 has 55 parts fructose to 42 parts glucose. That just shy of a 4:3 ratio, almost a third more fructose than glucose.
But it is only 5 parts more fructose than sucrose. And you think this small difference is causing all these alleged problems? That makes no sense. We also use a lot of HFCS 42 in processed foods. Does that mean HFCS is better for us in those applications than sucrose? Is the fructose the problem or is it HFCS in general? If it's the fructose, why does your paper state that the same problems we're experiencing occur in China and India where much less HFCS, and fructose, is being consumed?
The paper explains the pathway for de novo lipogenesis quite elegantly, IMHO
So, IYHO, you are saying that it is a well established fact that fructose has no feedback mechanism for dietary consumption because of where it enters the citric acid cycle but that glucose consumption is under control as a result of the hormonal effects on one enzyme in the glycolytic pathway? Interesting. That's not what we were taught but maybe you are up on this more than I -- and the PhD in Biochem/food science who runs our lab.
Take a gander at the other link in comment# 33 about HFCS's association with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
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?
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?
Thanks for the Link! I’ll post if no one else does. Later
Outstanding suggestion!
“Yuck! You can have my share. “
Attitudes like that may land you in the Food Reeducation Center for Global Warming and Nutrition /s
At least chocolate must still be made with sugar to be called chocolate. Chocolate “flavored” candy, made with hfcs is really gross. Try chocolate “flavored” Easter eggs - on sale now at places like drug stores if they’re not all sold out.
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.