Posted on 04/21/2010 2:21:20 PM PDT by neverdem
High fructose corn syrup, which is linked to obesity, may also be harmful to the liver, according to Duke University Medical Center research.
We found that increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup was associated with scarring in the liver, or fibrosis, among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), said Manal Abdelmalek, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology at Duke University Medical Center.
Her team of researchers at Duke, one of eight clinical centers in the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network, looked at 427 adults enrolled in the network. They analyzed dietary questionnaires collected within three months of the adults liver biopsies to determine their high fructose corn syrup intake and its association with liver scarring.
The researchers found only 19 percent of adults with NAFLD reported no intake of fructose-containing beverages, while 52 percent consumed between one and six servings a week and 29 percent consumed fructose-containing beverages on a daily basis.
An increase in consumption of fructose appeared to be correlated to increased liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.
We have identified an environmental risk factor that may contribute to the metabolic syndrome of insulin resistance and the complications of the metabolic syndrome, including liver injury, Abdelmalek said.
Research Abdelmalek published in the Journal of Hepatology in 2008 showed that, within a small subset of patients, high fructose corn syrup was associated with NAFLD. Her latest research, published online in Hepatology, goes one step further and links high fructose corn syrup to the progression of liver injury.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is present in 30 percent of adults in the United States, Abdelmalek said. Although only a minority of patients progress to cirrhosis, such patients are at increased risk for liver failure, liver cancer, and the need for liver transplant, she explained.
Unfortunately, there is no therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, she said. My hope is to see if we can find a factor, such as increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup, which, if modified, can decrease the risk of liver disease.
The idea is similar to what cardiologists have done for heart patients, Abdelmalek explained. They discovered that high-fat diets are bad for your heart, so they have promoted low-fat diets to decrease the risk of heart disease, she said.
We havent made it that far with liver disease yet, Abdelmalek said. We know that alcohol is not good for your liver, and therefore encourage patients to limit alcohol consumption. But what do you do when people have non-alcoholic liver disease?
Our findings suggest that we may need to go back to healthier diets that are more holistic, Abdelmalek said. High fructose corn syrup, which is predominately in soft-drinks and processed foods, may not be as benign as we previously thought.
The consumption of fructose has increased exponentially since the early 1970s, and with this rise, an increase in obesity and complications of obesity have been observed, Abdelmalek said.
There is an increasing amount of data that suggests high fructose corn syrup is fueling the fire of the obesity epidemic, but until now no one has ever suggested that it contributes to liver disease and/or liver injury. Abdelmalek said the next step is more studies looking at the mechanisms of liver injury.
We need to do formal studies that evaluate the influence of limiting or completely discontinuing high fructose corn syrup from ones diet and see if there are health benefits from doing so, she said.
Other authors on the study include Ayako Suzuki, Cynthia Guy, Anna Mae Diehl, all of Duke; Aynur Unalp-Arida and Ryan Colvin of John Hopkins; and Richard Johnson of the University of Colorado.
Youll notice this word pop up a lot, and I might remind everyone that its a fairly well-established truth that correlation is not causation, though, obviously, thats what they want you to think. Hence the sensationalistic headlines. If your study doesnt produce sensationalistic headlines, the people who fund you might start asking, What do we pay him for, anyway?
You noticed the people in the study had biopsies I hope. They were sick at least to the point of abnormal liver function tests that other blood tests couldn't explain. You can't do unethical tests on people. So they are reduced to animal tests about which people make complaints or these retrospective questionaires on dietary intake after the fact.
Science is supposed to be all about creating theories that can be falsified by tests. But, obviously, the way they run these studies, theyre trying to confirm, not falsify. And surprise, surprise, when they come out with the results, they dont allege that corn syrup causes liver damage. No, no. That would mean that their theory about the cause-and-effect relationship between corn syrup and bodily damage had been confirmed after withstanding falsification. But the tests arent about proving their theory wrong, as weve seen. Its about finding links and bending over backwards not to come up with an alternative explanation.
This is human medical science. There are limits to what you can do. After this study do you think they will start a prospective study with one group getting only HFCS-55 and the other sucrose sweetened soft drinks to test for the presence or absense of NAFLD? Depending on source, HFCS-55 is 55% percent fructose and either 40 or 42 percent glucose depending on the source, the rest being other monosaccharides. Than means either 37.5 or 31% more fructose than glucose. When fructose is metabolized it needs one less enzyme than glucose to make glycerol, which happens to make up the spine of triglycerides when glycerol combines with free fatty acids.
Sweet problem leaves bad taste
I've made links about those facts or findings on this link's thread.
From commen# 61 on this thread, I repeat myself:
Depending on the source, HFCS-55 is 55% percent fructose and either 40 or 42 percent glucose, the rest being other monosaccharides. Than means either 37.5 or 31% more fructose than glucose. When fructose is metabolized it needs one less enzyme than glucose to make glycerol, which happens to make up the spine of triglycerides when glycerol combines with free fatty acids.
There's a link at the end of commen# 61. Go to comment# 93 on that thread, IIRC, for links to those numbers sources about the percent of glucose.
My local Costco sells, believe it or not, Coca-Cola in 10oz bottles imported from Mexico and made with real sugar. A group of us blind tasted against the HFCS version and everyone agreed the sugar version was superior.
Holistic is not only a buzz word, but it makes no sense in the context that it was used.
Funny thing about your screen name. I have been thinking about children who (used to) grow up on islands where sugar cane was the only source of non-fruit sugar. A kid would definitely not get liver disease or obese from chewing on a stick of sugar cane.
>>Hey, you think theres a link because possibly, maybe, kinda, sorta, its in a lotta food and fat people eat a lotta food? Sounds reasonable. <<
Not really, if you believe the “calorie in/calorie out” theory of weight gain.
One person drinking water consuming 1500 to 2000 calories in food a day will not gain weight.
Now take the same amount of food consumption and add soda with sugar on top of it. In a year that person will gain weight because it’s not the amount of food (I can eat a large amount of spinach compared to someone eating burgers) it’s the amount of calories.
Liquids are not food but do have calories AND spike blood sugar that make a body produce insulin and store fat. The problem in the current theory of food consumption vs losing weight is that we eat too little and that’s too little of the right foods. A woman consuming less than 1500 calories finds that her metabolism slows and she cannot lose weight. We need to eat lots and often but make it veggies, lean protein and whole grains.
You are WAY too smart for this thread...
You’re being very kind, but I was always some kind of science junky, my major was chemistry with extra biochem and then med school. It wasn’t that easy, but thank you for the compliment.
I looked at the costco website earlier today and found that there is no costco in my state.
New evidence that green tea may help fight glaucoma and other eye diseases This press release has the URL for a FReebie. Copy & paste if you want.
Gene Therapy Cures Canines of Inherited Form of Day Blindness, Penn Veterinary Researchers Say
Tequila plant could help treat diabetes, osteoporosis
Sweet problem leaves bad taste
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
fyi, food safety legislation coming up in the Senate soon.
Sugar,or Sucrose, is broken down by the body into Glucose and Fructose, but only to the point that it can use both. HFCS is already broken down so the body is flooded with excess Fructose and Glucose and has to do something with it, so it converts the excess to fat.
The article talks about Fructose, but excess Glucose is also a player. There is lots of good science around the health problems with HFCS, to the point that I avoid it and have told my friends to do likewise. I have an MS in Chemistry so follow what is new in science daily. HFCS is not good and will be the next tobacco for tort lawyers. Coke and Pepsi will take big hits.
Thanks for the ping.
Aren’t we using Fructose corn syrups because of the weird sugar supports? Time to bring back real sugar...
“Get your coke from a Mexican market and you will find your coke and pepsi made with sugar.”
I get mine by the case at Costco.
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.