Huh?
HFCS, as noted in the study, bypasses the bodies control mechanism and you get all the problems noted.
Bypasses the bodies control mechanism? Huh?
So with less total input of “sugar” (which is what HFCS is called by the corn industry and many others) you get a magnified impact on your health.
What specific "magnified" impact are you claiming?
If HFCS is bad for you then so is sucrose. Either one, in moderation, is not bad for you in any way - unless you're a diabetic.
If HFCS is bad for you then so is sucrose.Exactly.
Either one, in moderation, is not bad for you in any way - unless you're a diabetic.Actually, the body can handle quite high doses of either - occasionally. It's chronic consumption at "moderate" levels that causes the problems.
I used to think like that too, but then I saw the actual numbers of idealized HFCS-55. It's 55 % fructose, 42 % glucose and 3 % other sugars. That's almost 4 grams of fructose for every 3 grams of glucose. If it was a calorie from fructose is the same as a calorie from glucose, then it wouldn't make a difference. Evidence keeps accumulating that it's not, especially in regard to de novo lipogenesis.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The results of short-term studies in humans suggest that, compared with glucose, acute consumption of fructose leads to increased postprandial energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation and decreased postprandial fat oxidation. The objective of this study was to determine the potential effects of increased fructose consumption compared with isocaloric glucose consumption on substrate utilization and energy expenditure following sustained consumption and under energy-balanced conditions. Subjects/Methods: As part of a parallel arm study, overweight/obese male and female subjects, 40–72 years, consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were assessed using indirect calorimetry at baseline and during the 10th week of intervention.Results: Consumption of fructose, but not glucose, led to significant decreases of net postprandial fat oxidation and significant increases of net postprandial carbohydrate oxidation (P<0.0001 for both). Resting energy expenditure (REE) decreased significantly from baseline values in subjects consuming fructose (P=0.031) but not in those consuming glucose.
Conclusions: Increased consumption of fructose for 10 weeks leads to marked changes of postprandial substrate utilization including a significant reduction of net fat oxidation. In addition, we report that REE is reduced compared with baseline values in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks.
--snip--
Body weight and composition
As reported previously (Stanhope et al., 2009), despite comparable weight gain (~1–2% of initial body weight) during the 8-week outpatient intervention, subjects consuming fructose primarily exhibited increases of visceral adipose tissue, whereas in subjects consuming glucose subcutaneous adipose tissue was preferentially increased.
Abstract The consumption of fructose, largely in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), has risen over the past several decades and is thought to contribute negatively to metabolic health. However, the fructose content of foods and beverages produced with HFCS is not disclosed and estimates of fructose content are based on the common assumption that the HFCS used contains 55% fructose. The objective of this study was to conduct an objective laboratory analysis of the sugar content and composition in popular sugar-sweetened beverages with a particular focus on fructose content. Twenty-three sugar-sweetened beverages along with four standard solutions were analyzed for sugar profiles using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in an independent, certified laboratory. Total sugar content was calculated as well as percent fructose in the beverages that use HFCS as the sole source of fructose. Results showed that the total sugar content of the beverages ranged from 85 to 128% of what was listed on the food label. The mean fructose content in the HFCS used was 59% (range 47-65%) and several major brands appear to be produced with HFCS that is 65% fructose. Finally, the sugar profile analyses detected forms of sugar that were inconsistent with what was listed on the food labels. This analysis revealed significant deviations in sugar amount and composition relative to disclosures from producers. In addition, the tendency for use of HFCS that is higher in fructose could be contributing to higher fructose consumption than would otherwise be assumed.Besides obesity and type 2 diabetes, there's a smaller epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We never had the latter when we just used sucrose.