# How Dangerous is High-Fructose Corn Syrup?



## Corey123 (Apr 8, 2007)

Does anyone know the real dangers behind high-fuctose corn syrup? Is it a liquid form of sugar? 

I heard that it's the #1 cause, or at least helps contribute to the cause of obesity in children and adults. It's used in the manufacture of just about everything from cereal to ketchup.

Just wondering.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

" Is it a liquid form of sugar"

From what i gather they take corn, and break it down, getting a corn syrup. then they take that syrup and purify it some more, increasing the sugar content even further

they use it because it's cheap to make it and it takes along time for it to go bad.  it's complete and utter garbage and i don't touch the stuff, but as for why it is harder to burn off a gram of high fructose corn syrup than it is to burn off a gram of sugar? I don't know.

But yeah this obesity thing is really out of hand.  we have become the laughing stock of the world.  Here in Houston it's horrible.  You see people that are so big in the grocery stores that they ride around on little scooters.

I don't know if this is true, but i heard on a news special that this generation of kids is the first generation here that are not expected to outlive their parents, or something to that effect...

These cheapskates need to stop putting so much garbage in the food to make more money.  The poor don't know any better and just eat whatever they can and they suffer for it and it's horrible for the longterm health of this country(usa)


----------



## Snoop Puss (Apr 8, 2007)

If you look up corn syrup and diabetes in Google, you'll get lots of hits. It's all very depressing. The things that are supposed to be better for you - margarine rather than butter, corn syrup rather than sugar - seem to be just as bad.

And while you're at it, check out soya, which is often added to packet-type food. It contains phytooestrogens, so it's not bad for chapesses of a certain age but not good for chaps, especially young ones.
BBC NEWS | Northern Ireland | Soya 'link' to male infertility


----------



## Topaz (Apr 8, 2007)

According to Wikipedia, high fructose corn syrup is processed corn syrup with varying percentages of fructose and glucose. It is a liquid which is used in many processed foods as a sugar replacement. It's used because it's cheap and has a long shelf life. 

The high percentage of fructose in this kind of corn syrup is the concern as high fructose diets can lead to cardiovascular disease and obesity. However, other evidence suggests that glucose has the same effect. 

So I guess reducing all forms of sugar in our diet is the way to go rather than just reducing high fructose corn syrup.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

Snoop, yeah, alot of people don't know about that margarine thing either.

I just try to use small amounts of butter only on certain meals.

Normally i will just an almond oil or an olive oil.


----------



## Caine (Apr 8, 2007)

High fructose corn syrup is so dangerous, the U.S. Government will not set a Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for it.  You can assume this means the maximum recommended allowance is ZERO!

HFCS is not recognized by your body as a sugar, therefore your pancreas does not release any insulin to metabolize it, as it would with sucrose, lactose, glucose, etc. Without the insulin to metabolize it, the HFCS is simply converted to fat and stored, usually in the most embarassing place it can find.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

Okay so that means it will burn off Carb calories first, and then resort to burning off the HFCS last?

What is the order in which calories are burned?

I heard it was - 

Carbs, Fat, Protein

At what point does your body start using it's own muscle for food?

If your body has a disproportionate amount of fat, meaning alot more fat than muscle, will it change the way it prioritizes things?

IE will a fat guy's body burn off a lot of fat before it dips into his muscle reserves? And this rate slowly balances itsself?

(sorry, hoping a nutritionist or something drops in this thread, lol)

Cheers


----------



## Topaz (Apr 8, 2007)

High fructose corn syrup is part fructose and part glucose so the body is perfectly able to deal with it. It won't make you fatter than anything else with the same calories.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

Topaz, are you saying the stigma around it is completely manufactured?  I doubt they have all the comprehensive info on a site like Wikipedia.


----------



## Topaz (Apr 8, 2007)

I think the Wikipedia article is saying that yes, high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy, as has been shown in a couple of studies but regular sugar in the same dose can have the same negative health effects. 

I'm not saying it's nothing to worry about, just that it's possibly not this ingredient which is the problem but consuming significant amounts of this or any other kind of sugar is the problem.


----------



## ChefJune (Apr 8, 2007)

Topaz said:
			
		

> I think the Wikipedia article is saying that yes, high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy, as has been shown in a couple of studies but regular sugar in the same dose can have the same negative health effects.
> 
> I'm not saying it's nothing to worry about, just that it's possibly not this ingredient which is the problem but consuming significant amounts of this or any other kind of sugar is the problem.


I'm curious, Topaz, what your basis is for saying that hfcs is NOT bad for the body?

What are your credentials? and why do you believe that all these other authorities are incorrect?


----------



## college_cook (Apr 8, 2007)

ChefJune said:
			
		

> I'm curious, Topaz, what your basis is for saying that hfcs is NOT bad for the body?
> 
> What are your credentials? and why do you believe that all these other authorities are incorrect?



He didn't say it wasn't bad for the body.  All it is, is concentrated sugar, used as a sweetener, generally.  Fructose is simply a form of sugar, and high fructose corn syrup contains fructose in higher concentration.

If you eat the stuff in high quantities, then OF COURSE it is unhealthy for you.  I think that's what the studies are trying to get at; we eat it in much more of our foods than we used to.  I know as a kid I used to eat cereal for breakfast every morning.  One of the first ingredients in breakfast cereal is high fructose corn syrup.  I believe high fructose corn syrup is the first ingredient in every non-diet soda out there.  It's simply a stable sweetener that has gained popularity among manufacturers because it's easy to use.

You're not going to suffer ill effects if you eat a few bowls of sugary cereal every week. But if you eat it all the time, and drink soda all the time, then yes you'll suffer the same effects that come upon anyone who ingests too much sugar: poor dental hygiene, weight gain, and increased risk for diabetes.  It's just sugar folks; treat it as such.  You all know that eating too much sugar is bad, so simply realize that eating too many foods conatining high-fructose corn syrup is also bad.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

the studies i have been reading show that it is actually quite a bit more significant than that.


----------



## college_cook (Apr 8, 2007)

Mylegsbig said:
			
		

> the studies i have been reading show that it is actually quite a bit more significant than that.




Could you share those studies with the rest of us so we're all on the same page?

Also, who were they conducted by?


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

Just do a google search man, you will find like 20... i've seen quite a few studies saying that all things being equal, eating plain sugar is NOT just as bad as consuming an equal amount of high fructose corn syrup...

The only one i could find saying that HFCS is not bad for you came from a website run by the Corn Grower's Association of America or something, lol

If it's just a big myth and witch hunt, show me the light


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 8, 2007)

You cannot compare equal quantities of table sugar (sucrose) and HFCS because HFCS is twice as sweet as sucrose.  So, of course, it's twice as "bad" for you.

I have read that HFCS is easier on a diabetic's metabolism than sucrose.


----------



## college_cook (Apr 8, 2007)

Mylegsbig said:
			
		

> Just do a google search man, you will find like 20... i've seen quite a few studies saying that all things being equal, eating plain sugar is NOT just as bad as consuming an equal amount of high fructose corn syrup...




Well since you fail to offer valid sources for your information, I'll begin.

First, from everyone's favorite online encyclopedia, take these snippets at face value since wikipedia did not publish these studies, nor is it a reliable scientific or medical journal.

HFCS on Wikipedia

Quoting now, from Wikipedia:

"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters."

"Perrigue et al (2006) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened HFCS 45, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake. They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake. Taken together with Melanson et al (2006), this study shows that there is little or no evidence for the hypothesis that HFCS is different from sucrose in its effects on appetite or on metabolic processes involved in fat storage. "


Information on Fructose from Wikipedia

Again, quoting Wikipedia:

"Fructose (or levulose) is a simple sugar (monosaccharide) found in many foods and is one of the three most important blood sugars along with glucose and galactose"

"Often, fructose is consumed as high fructose corn syrup, which is corn syrup (glucose) that has been enzymatically treated by the enzyme glucose isomerase. This enzyme converts a portion of the glucose into fructose thus making it sweeter. This is done to such a degree as to yield corn syrup with an equivalent sweetness to sucrose by weight. While most carbohydrates have around the same amount of calories, fructose is sweeter and manufacturers can use less of it to get the same result."

From the following publisher:

The FASEB Journal, Vol 4, 2652-2660, Copyright © 1990 by The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Quoting:

"Because of the introduction of high fructose corn sweeteners in 1967, the amount of free fructose in the diet of Americans has increased substantially in the last 20 years. Fructose is sweeter, more soluble, and less glucogenic than glucose or sucrose, so it has been recommended as a replacement for these sugars in the diets of diabetic and obese people."

How the body uses Glucose and Fructose


So, here's the breakdown for anyone that doesn't particularly feel like reading through the scholarly journals section of Google:

Sucrose is the most common natural sugar, and is what we know as white sugar, table sugar, or granulated sugar.  Sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose, 1 molecule of each.  Glucose, when ingested, is absorbed directly into our bloodstreams for immediate use by our bodies.  Glucose is the simplest form of sugar, and it is the energy that allows every one of the billions of cells that make up our bodies work.  When glucose is ingested and the bloodstream is already full of glucose, it goes into temporary storage as glycogen.  Glycogen exists in our organs and muscle tissues throughout or body.  It is there so that when our supply of glucose is depleted, it is immediately broken back down into glucose for immediate use.  Fructose, on the other hand, must be metabolized by our livers to be usable.  So for fructose to be broken down into usable glucose, it is first metabolized by you liver, then stored as glycogen (short-term storage).  If your body is low on glucose, then it will break down the glycogen metabolized from fructose and be used by your body.  However, this is rarely the case in our society.  For us, it is more normal for fructose to be metabolized by our livers, and when it is about to be stored as glycogen, lo and behold, our bodies are already full on their stores of glycogen.  So what becomes of it?  You guessed it.  It is stored as fat.

Now the question still needs to be answered, is fructose bad for you?  NO!  It's broken down into usable parts just like everything else we consume.  It's is not the fault of the ingredient, or the manufacturers, if WE consume too much sugar in our diets and become fat as a result.


For those who really don't even want to read all that I've written and researched, here's the nitty-gritty:

If there is too much sugar in your diet, you will get fat.
If there's a proper amount of sugar in your diet, you will not get fat.

If you eat too many HFCS-rich foods you will get fat.
If you eat a healthy and BALANCED diet, you will not get fat.



So in conclusion, yes, all the commotion surrounding the ill-effects of HFCS is pure crap.  It's simply people pointing fingers because they don't have enough self-control or will power to monitor and/or control their own eating habits.  If you're fat, it's your fault.  (Except genetic obesity)  Don't blame manufacturers.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

the more i read into the serious articles the more the HFCS thing appears to be a hoax.


----------



## Topaz (Apr 8, 2007)

ChefJune said:
			
		

> I'm curious, Topaz, what your basis is for saying that hfcs is NOT bad for the body?


As College Cook points out, I never said that. 

I have no credentials in this area, it's just common sense. Do you really think that if your daily diet consists of processed foods and soft drinks containing HFCS and you replaced them with processed foods and soft drinks containing sugar, you would eliminate your risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease? I don't think so. 

College Cook's reply is very well researched and very well written. Read it. It makes sense.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 8, 2007)

Great post, college cook


----------



## Mylegsbig (Apr 8, 2007)

Agree.  Good job college cook.


----------



## college_cook (Apr 8, 2007)

It's just the facts.  Unfortunately, many journalists over-sensationalize their coverage, and while this is understandable in some respects, I think it's irresponsible to create hype around overly complicated issues such as this.  Most people don't want to or don't have the time to invest in reading scholarly articles from end to end, they just want the summary, and the media takes advantage of this sometimes.  Let's face it, scientific journals don't exactly qualify as light reading.

I just get frustrated I guess, at all the hype that gets thrown around about obesity and diabetes, especially in children.  Obviously it's cause for much concern, but I think the real problem is that folks want to point the finger rather than come to grips that their health problems are a result of their own habits.   Honestly, if you're overweight, ask yourself this:  do you REALLY try as hard as you can to eat properly and excersize as much as you can.  I know I don't.  I'm overweight and it's my fault.  It's just easier to point fingers at someone else, and I think it's a shame that so many people fall victim to that.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 8, 2007)

CC:

I have always been frustrated by the food police and the sensational claims they make.  Many of these claims are often reversed later.

I saw a segment on 60 Minutes tonight about Rick Berman who is a guy who challenges the food police (among others) and their sometimes over the top claims.   He's a shill for the companies but makes some good points.


----------



## callie (Apr 8, 2007)

I appreciate your posts, College Cook.  Thanks for the insight!


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 8, 2007)

Thanks everyone!

A wealth of info here on this subject.

The reason, or the main reason that I was trying to find this out is because since I'm a Type 2 diabetic, some sugar is needed to help stablize the glucose level in order to keep my blood sugar level from getting dangerously low.

It's like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place! I can't have too much or too little sugar. It can also be gotten from starchy foods as well.

Yes, the body is supposed to burn off fat first, then sugar, then protein last, I think. Which is why diabetics, obese children and adults should not be couch potatoes all the time.


----------



## college_cook (Apr 8, 2007)

Corey123 said:
			
		

> Yes, the body is supposed to burn off fat first, then sugar, then protein last, I think. Which is why diabetics, obese children and adults should not be couch potatoes all the time.



The body burns off sugars, then fat, then proteins.  I'm pretty sure that's why diabetics have to be so careful about their sugar intake, because it can become depleted so much more quickly than anything else.

Fructose (note, not high fructose) is reccommended in th diets for some diabetics because it is broken down and releases glucose into the bloodstream at a measured pace, rather than consuming glucose, which is absorbed into the bloodstream immediately upon ingestion.  Changing from glucose to fructose might be something to talk to your doctor about, as it can be very beneficial to some diabetics.

I would say one thing though: if you drink alcohol regularly be careful about switching to a fructose diet.  Fructose is metabolized in the liver, and since you're a diabetic and have to carefull watch your sugar intake as it is, fructose alone won't be a risk to your liver.  However, the combination of too much fructose and/or alcohol has the potential to be damaging to your liver in long-term situations.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 8, 2007)

No wonder my stomach is always growling, as it is right now!

I've also been told that diabetics must eat food in small amounts because they have to eat something at least every 2 hours to avoid getting sick (hypoglysemic or hyperglysemic attacks).


----------



## Claire (Apr 9, 2007)

You know we all have beliefs and opinions.  I think a large cause of obesity and its sidekick, diabetes being on the increase is the constant eating, not just one ingredient.  I (at 52 years old) was allowed 2 cookies a day (after school) and often chose fruit (which was offered as well).  I got a little, and I do mean small, handful of potato chips once in awhile.  We didn't walk around with a sippy cup of apple juice -- which the children of my friends do -- constantly.  Eating or drinking (other than water) required going home and talking to Mom.  And often the answer was "no, it's only a couple of hours to dinner."  I think that it is interesting that my young French friend doesn't have a weight problem, but also does not walk around with a calorie source in his fist every minute of the day.  Most of my young friends and relatives have something in their hands to eat or drink every minute.


----------



## JMediger (Apr 9, 2007)

Corey123 said:
			
		

> I've also been told that diabetics must eat food in small amounts because they have to eat something at least every 2 hours to avoid getting sick (hypoglysemic or hyperglysemic attacks).


 
Hi Corey, I read this last night and "bite my fingers", thinking I had said enough on another post where you asked a similar question but after sleeping on it, I feel I should say something.

If you are a diabetic, you MUST get proper information from a doctor or nutritiontist.  I'm not saying we here aren't smart and there aren't doctors or nutritionists among us but we don't know you.  My dad is a diabetic (juvenile) so I know the importance of proper care and management of this disease.  If your insurance will not cover the cost of a nurtitional advisor, make an appointment with your gp and demand a referal to a diabetic counselor.  They will help you develop a diet and regime that will help you control your diabetes.  If you are not on insuline and trying to control this with diet alone, it is even more important.  If the diabetic counselor does not assist you in regulating this disease, demand a new person.

The short answer to your question regarding eating every 2 hours is "kind of".  You need to eat at regulated intervals that are appropriate for your diabetes and your lifestyle.  Only your doctor or nutritionist can help you with this information.  To begin, they may probly ask you to keep a log of when and what you are eating, when you are feeling low, and when you may feel high.  From this, they can help you develop a plan.

I'm sorry if I am offending you or am coming across as a nag but diabetes, at any stage in life, is nothing to play around with.  With any type of diabetes, the risks run the same from minor moments of being out of it to full blown diabetic comas and amputations.

Good luck to you ...


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 9, 2007)

JMediger, 'consult your physician' is very good advice.

The good folks here at DC always offer advice because they sincerely want to help their fellow members.  I do it all the time.  

No one should make a medical decision based on the advice of a non-medical professional from an internet forum contributor who has never examined the patient.

I know Corey123 is smart enough to know that.


----------



## JMediger (Apr 9, 2007)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> JMediger, 'consult your physician' is very good advice.


 
Thank you



			
				Andy M. said:
			
		

> The good folks here at DC always offer advice because they sincerely want to help their fellow members. I do it all the time.


 
And a very good and sincere group it is. I would never want any of my posts to imply that people should not offer their opinion nor offer their sincere advice.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 9, 2007)

Anyone seeking medical information here should only use it as information to take to a qualified medical professional.

Often, folks with a medical problem will not realize it and information they get here will motivate them to seek medical care.  That's how it should work.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 9, 2007)

JMediger said:
			
		

> Hi Corey, I read this last night and "bite my fingers", thinking I had said enough on another post where you asked a similar question but after sleeping on it, I feel I should say something.
> 
> If you are a diabetic, you MUST get proper information from a doctor or nutritiontist. I'm not saying we here aren't smart and there aren't doctors or nutritionists among us but we don't know you. My dad is a diabetic (juvenile) so I know the importance of proper care and management of this disease. If your insurance will not cover the cost of a nurtitional advisor, make an appointment with your gp and demand a referal to a diabetic counselor. They will help you develop a diet and regime that will help you control your diabetes. If you are not on insuline and trying to control this with diet alone, it is even more important. If the diabetic counselor does not assist you in regulating this disease, demand a new person.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you.

I've seen my doctor, a nutritianist and a cardiologist. and have gotten info on the disease. In fact, my eyes were examined for glasses at the Joslin Diabetes Center. 

Been there several times and have an appointment there the end of the month. And my insurance covers it

What is juvinile diabetes? i can't remember if I recorded this or not, but there was a documentary on a 16-year-old boy who was morbidly obese, had diabetes and sleep apnea.

He decided to have the stomach surgery which reduces the size of the stomach to a pear (Al Roker had the same surgery done a while back). The boy began to lose weight dramatically, and once he lost a considerable amount,
his diabetes went away and so did his sleeping disorder. He says he feels much better and excersises regularly and he's eating healthier foods.


----------



## JMediger (Apr 9, 2007)

Juvenile diabetes is referred to as Type 1 Diabetes more frequently now.  It is an inherited form of diabetes that afflicts individuals before the age of 15.  It is typically controlled with insulin injections but more and more young people, with a great focus by their familes are able to control it with diet and tablets.  It is not "curable" with weightloss or diet changes.  

Most individuals with juvenile diabetes can trace it back in their families for generations and future generations of these individuals must be diligent in their testing for the disease as it may "pop - up" at any time.  As future generations head into adult hood, they are also more prone to later or adult onset diabetes, especially if they are over weight or heavy drinkers.

My dad was diagnosed when he was 9 years old.

If you have adult onset diabetes, yours can be controlled with diet and exercise alone IF you are dilagent and with proper supervision by your doctor.  Again, they [your doctor and dietician/nutritionist] should be helping you "program" your eating to find what works the best for you.  For my dad, munching on crackers every couple of hours worked.  For you, it may not.  Again, your physician who has worked (hopefully closely) can help you with this.  If you feel he/she is not helping you in a way that you feel you have or can easily get answers - request a new doctor.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 12, 2007)

Caine said:
			
		

> High fructose corn syrup is so dangerous, the U.S. Government will not set a Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for it. You can assume this means the maximum recommended allowance is ZERO!
> 
> HFCS is not recognized by your body as a sugar, therefore your pancreas does not release any insulin to metabolize it, as it would with sucrose, lactose, glucose, etc. Without the insulin to metabolize it, the HFCS is simply converted to fat and stored, usually in the most embarassing place it can find.


 
Not true, and you being a nutritionist should know that!

If you are a male rat, *and* have a "copper deficiency" in your diet - and consume larger than normal amounts of fructose (from any source) then you may be subject to _develop severe pathologies of vital organs - liver, heart and testes exhibit extreme swelling, while the pancreas atrophies, invariably leading to death of the rats before maturity._

Then we get comments like this: _"The bodies of the children I see today are mush," observed a concerned chiropractor recently. The culprit is the modern diet, high in fructose and low in copper-containing foods, resulting in inadequate formation of elastin and collagen--the sinews that hold the body together._

The idea that "fructose" doesn't invoke an insulin response is totally bogus. It's metabolized differently ... and released into the blood stream slower than sucrose or glucose- but it does cause an insulin response. On the Glycemic Index (GI) - table sugar is 100, a potato is 95, a banana is 60, and fructose is 20 - which is why fructose is better for diabetics .... twice as sweet so they only consume 1/2 as much, and it is released into the blood slower so there is less impact on the insulin system.

The nice thing about a lot of scientific research is that it is like statistical data ... you can tweak the same data to prove your point - no matter which way you want it to go ... for the average person reading it that doesn't have a real clue as to what the research really means. 

Basically - if you boil it all down most of the research says - calories from sugar in place of calories from other more nutritious foods is bad. The so called "Empty Calories" - calories without other nutritional benefit. I can go along with that ... on the average. But, if you ever worked in exercise physiology ... electrolytes and measurable glucose/fructose levels is, well, Gatorade!


----------



## Caine (Apr 12, 2007)

Michael in FtW said:
			
		

> Not true, and you being a nutritionist should know that!


 
Do you think I just make this stuff up?  Here's an excerpt from an article from the Washington Post entitled 

*Sweet but Not So Innocent? *​High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body.

_More recent research suggests, however, that there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using the (high fructose corn) syrup. Fructose is absorbed differently than other sugars, says Bray. It doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way that glucose does. _
_For example, consumption of glucose kicks off a cascade of biochemical reactions. It increases production of insulin by the pancreas, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells, where it can be used for energy. It increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and it suppresses production of another hormone made by the stomach, ghrelin, that helps regulate food intake. It has been theorized that when ghrelin levels drop, as they do after eating carbohydrates composed of glucose, hunger declines. _

_Fructose is a different story. It appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation, explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain._


----------



## LMJ (Apr 12, 2007)

Mylegsbig said:
			
		

> At what point does your body start using it's own muscle for food?


 






_"I think that it is interesting that my young French friend doesn't have a weight problem, but also does not walk around with a calorie source in his fist every minute of the day."_

They also don't use so much corn syrup or hydrogenated vegetable oils. America is the #1 consumer by any measure (by volume, per capita, total) of these heavily processed imitation fats and sugars. We're a sedentary people in America, true, but the artificial fats and sugars are killing us. If we stuck to compounds that actually occur in nature like continental Europeans do we'd probably be an awful lot better off.


----------



## Snoop Puss (Apr 13, 2007)

LMJ, these are photoshopped images and not pictures of real models. Bodies of truly anorexic women have been used and superimposed to make models look far thinner than they really are. It'll take me a little while, but I'll try and find a link to a site with comparative shots.

It's extremely sad that while most of us see that these as ill bodies, some people presume that they are accepted standards of beauty. It is difficult to understand the motives of anyone photoshopping these images.

As for the corn syrup debate, I personally wouldn't take Wikipedia as gospel. My information came from the BBC, but that's written by journalists, who probably can't be trusted to have all the information either. When other points of view were put forward, I went looking for information. This is what the Mayo Clinic has to say:

High-fructose corn syrup: Why is it so bad for me? - MayoClinic.com


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 13, 2007)

Ok, HFCS is said to be a cheaper form of sweetener that's used in place of sugar.

I've looked at the ingredients on just about everything that I bought, and so far, I've yet to find ANYTHING that has sugar in it. Even cold cereal!

Have manufactures of things like yogurt, cereal, ketchup, even candy gone to cheaper & poorer quality by using HFCS? What a shame!!

Are we suposed to give up the foods that we were so used to because HFCS is more fattening than regular sugar? I imagine that chilvary IS dead!


----------



## bethzaring (Apr 13, 2007)

Corey123 said:
			
		

> I've looked at the ingredients on just about everything that I bought, and so far, I've yet to find ANYTHING that has sugar in it. Even cold cereal!
> 
> Have manufactures of things like yogurt, cereal, ketchup, even candy gone to cheaper & poorer quality by using HFCS? What a shame!!
> 
> Are we suposed to give up the foods that we were so used to because HFCS is more fattening than regular sugar? I imagine that chilvary IS dead!


 
Cory, the food manufactures are not in this for OUR health, they are in it for our $$$$$$.

Sugar goes by a lot of different names.

Everything in moderation, my friend.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm well aware of that, but to me, it's like cutting corners and impairing the quality that we used to get in certain foods.

And yes, they might not be in it for our health, but they're SUPPOSED to!


----------



## lulu (Apr 13, 2007)

Corey123 said:
			
		

> .....
> And yes, they might not be in it for our health, but they're SUPPOSED to!



Believeing that will get you a lot of disappointment.  They are there to sell a product and make as much profit as possible.  Even in health industries profit rules, and I'm afraid the food industry is not  health industry, but just a food supplying one.  The responsibilty for what we eat for HEALTH is ours.  Its one of the reasons I prefer to cook from scratch...because I decide what I use to get a same/similar product.  If you are looking to the food industry to make health choices for you you will not suceed.  All they have to do is not put things in there products that in moderation won't harm us.  

Perhaps this is a common misconception and is contributory to the obesity and related illnesses problems?  I had not appreciated that some people really believed the food industry were, in Corey's words, supposed to be in it for our health.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 13, 2007)

Well said, Lulu.  I agree.


----------



## Snoop Puss (Apr 13, 2007)

I agree but... I've seen products labelled "contains no sugar" and then you look at the ingredients and they've got corn syrup in. People are being misled by the suggestion that such products are healthier when in fact they're not.


----------



## lulu (Apr 13, 2007)

This is the myth of food labeling, and I agree that is misleading, and I think wrong, and I presume Snoop, by healthier you mean lower in calories   because otherwise we have to consider the reports on sweeteners etc. (I know thats a different can of worms, lol).  Its also the use of the word sugar that worries me.  The thing is, we have to come to terms with the fact that syrup/fructose/glucose/sucrose.....they are essentially sweet simple SUGARS (some one more chemistry minded can correct me on that..) and they are all going to have calories and in excess lead to weight gain.  It seems to me that instead of developing a tolerance to having less sugar in the diet and in the body at any one time people are looking for the impossible.  I don't think sugar is bad, I really don't, I like the stuff, but I know the more I have the more my body "needs" and demands..the less I have the less I get the "sugar shakes" and the better my body functions.  I know, if I'm honest, that this happens if I have a commercial candy bar/cereal whatever or a homemade piece of cake.  The difference is I KNOW I understand and I have taken responsibilty for what I put in the home made piece of cake.  Furthermore, the satisfaction of spending some time baking etc, not only burns a few more of those excess calories than opening a packet, but prolongs the experience and turns it into a rewarding eating one, rather than a rather perfunctory exercise in obtaining something sweet. Same with home made juice rather than bought stuff: its all sugar in a glass, but if I'm going to have it I'll have that liquid sugar fresh please.  This is the mind game I play with my self to endulge the gourmet (ok then, gourmand) in me while trying also to eat for health.  If I pay any  company for my kicks I KNOW they are looking out for profit and not my health.  Its the quote I highlighted previously that I found so sadly worrying.  No one apart from us and our mother's really cares about our health, lol.

The truth of the matter is, if it tastes sweet something made it that way.  The other truth is its our body and our responsibility, if we are expecting the food industry to do that we will be diappointed every time.


----------



## Caine (Apr 13, 2007)

Snoop Puss said:
			
		

> This is what the Mayo Clinic has to say:
> 
> "_In addition, animal studies have shown a link between increased consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and adverse health effects, such as diabetes and high cholesterol. However, the evidence is not as clear in human studies_."


 
They pretty much said a lot of nothing. In fact it reminded me of a political speech, meant not to inform as much as to not offend anyone. But, what bothers be most about their attitude, especially the part quoted above is, who in their right mind is going to volunteer for a study of the adverse effects of HFCS on humans? Please raise your hands!

Therfore, I stand firm on my previous statement, and the article I quoted, that HFCS is NOT treated like sugar by the human body, that it does not cause the pancreas to release insulin, and that it is stored as fat.

If you have any doubts whatsoever, just take a look at your local four-Cokes-a-day man.  Sorry. Make that four-Cokes-a-day PERSON!


----------



## Caine (Apr 13, 2007)

Snoop Puss said:
			
		

> I agree but... I've seen products labelled "contains no sugar" and then you look at the ingredients and they've got corn syrup in. People are being misled by the suggestion that such products are healthier when in fact they're not.


 
Did you read my previous post about the Mrs. Smith's pies and transfats? They got around the transfats quanity issue by increasing the number of servings per pie from 6 to 12! I would like to see someone cut a 9-inch round pie into 12 pieces, then remove one slice for serving!


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 13, 2007)

In the past, I was not making my own pie crust, but I think I'll start. Who knows what's in the frozen crusts!!


----------



## Caine (Apr 13, 2007)

The best pie crusts are made with lard. Lard is not good for you. The second best pie crusts are made with butter. Butter isn't all that good for you either. 

The pie crust on that Mrs. Smith pie I was taliking about was made with hydrogentated vegetable oil (shortening) and margarine, both of which are a LOT worse for you than either lard or butter.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 13, 2007)

I was about to say that shortening isn't food either.

The three are supposed to make for a tender flakey crust, so what does one use, oil?

But then again, moderation is the key. It's not every day that I would eat pie.


----------



## Andy M. (Apr 13, 2007)

Corey, take your pick.  You have to use a solid fat to make a pie crust.  I wouldn't forsee a major isue unless you eat them by the boatload daily.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 14, 2007)

That's what I was thinking.


----------



## bethzaring (Apr 14, 2007)

Corey, when I made pie crusts I used lard or butter, which ever I had on hand. But I have made an effort to eliminate crusts from my pies, precisely to reduce the fat content in my diet. I simply make crustless pies, when I make them. I try to eat fresh fruit, instead of making deserts with fruit.

My DH has hypoglycemia and he says he feels better when he eats oatmeal for breakfast. It is cheap and nourishing. I buy oatmeal by the 50 pound bag at a health food store. For 50 pounds of organic oats, I pay $37.50, and that lasts us about 6 months. That comes out to $1.44 a week for our cereal cost. You could try an experiment, just change what you eat for breakfast to oats and see if that controls your unstable blood sugars any better.


----------



## Corey123 (Apr 14, 2007)

I DO eat oatmeal for breakfast. In fact, I'm gonna make some right now.

I also wrote a thread here on how oatmeal can help reduce bad cholesterol.


----------



## Caine (Apr 14, 2007)

Corey123 said:
			
		

> It's not every day that I would eat pie.


 
I would, but it would have to be cut into 12 pieces!


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 19, 2007)

Caine said:
			
		

> Do you think I just make this stuff up?


 
Not intentionally ... however the bug up my hiney is "selective" reporting ... aka: not reporting *all* of the facts. While your "excepts" from the _Washington Post_ article writen by Sally Squires, a "staff writer" (not a medical or scientific writer) supported YOUR anti-sugar agenda ... it did not reflect either the entirety of the article nor all of the research. For those wanting to read the entire article, not just selected excerpts, it can be found here. 

The media, and some "so called" nutritionists, have done a great job of misdirecting or distracting prople ... they hear the word fructose and think it means "high fructose corn syrup" because that is what the media has conditioned them to believe. The fact is - this is sooo bogus, and detracts from the real problem!!! 

The truth is (in short) - corn syrup (glucose) is hydrolized from corn starch ... if you then process it to convert part of the glucose to furctose you have High-Fructose Corn Syrup - a term used to differentiate it from regular corn syrup which doesn't contain fructose. Generally, it's about 45% glucose and 55% fructose. Table sugar, sucose, is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

Grab an orange ... *IF* it had a label on it ... breaking down the "types of sugar" it contains .. it would show about 50% Sucrose, 25% glucose, and 25% Fructose. 

Even before HFCS - we were using _invet sugars_ in baking and confections for their properties ... made from breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose.

Is fructose metabolized differently than glucose? Probably, according to some research. Is HFCS a greater threat than sucrose? Probably only to the Sugar Cane Producers - there is credible research that shows it's no more harmful than table sugar. 

Are we consuming too much sugar? I'll agree with that - if you're honet about it and don't try to put all the blame on HFCS ... this is getting to be a problem even in EU countries that don't have HFCS.


----------



## Caine (Apr 19, 2007)

This particular article is not the only place I have seen HFCS accused of not stimulating insulin release. I have seen several articles, including THIS ONE and THIS ONE that have come to the same conclusion. 

When several, unrelated, people report the same information, quoting different medical studies, I tend to believe what they're concluding. Like I said, I don't make this stuff up. As a personal trainer, senior fitness instructor, and nutritionist, I always make sure my ducks are all in a row.

BTW, the first article was written by Susan M. Kleiner, PhD, R.D., who is one of the foremost nutrition authorities on eating for strength. She don't make this stuff up, either.


----------



## Alix (Apr 19, 2007)

OK, I've read the articles and IMO it seems that consumers just need to be aware and educated. Caine, Michael is a proponent of having ALL the information, not just pieces of it. In this particular case I would have to agree. Lets be honest here, the chemistry is important, but using your brain is really the key to good health and nutrition. No one who uses their brain is going to consume a "a six-pack of Mountain Dew or eat a half gallon of frozen yogurt" and not guess that they might gain some weight from it regardless of whether there is a chemical trigger to cease consuming calories. 

You both have good points and you both have correct points. Caine, your point about HFCS not stimulating an insulin response is correct. However Michael's point about it being metabolized differently in the body is also correct. Nothing can enter your body and not be processed in one way or another. 

The point of the original question was essentially "is HFCS bad for you" the short answer is "yes". Any dietician will tell you though that you can consume HFCS if you modify the rest of your intake on any given day. If I want to have a can of Coke, I just need to make sure I account for that in my daily caloric intake and exercise regimen.


----------



## lulu (Apr 19, 2007)

I absolutely agrre with what Michael and Alix are saying BUT, and its a big but, to pick up on ALix's point, and repeat a point I have made in similar threads, it seems that despite most of us knowing "a six pack of Mountain Dew or ...a half gallon of froxen yoghurt" we are seeing time and time again people who care about food making bad choices, and seemingly, if what they say in fora such as this, they are so confused they DON"T understand that this comes down to ;if its sweet it got that way some how and it has repurcusions somewhere!  I am repeating this point because it is important: if people who care enough about what they eat to be members of fora on cooking/eating are making bad choices unknowingly, what are the people trying to shop and feed themselves/a family with NO interest, no research and no knowledge doing?  Its not up to the food industry to make these choises for us, but I think we have to stand up and say you can't eat hundreds of sweet/fat heavy foods because they say "sugar free/fat free" and not expect to have ramifications!

ETA I think that the only point I'm picking up in Alix's post is that whee as she is able to make these sensible and necessary decisions others do not sem so able, this concerns with me.  I did not what to leave unedited as it reads like I'm disagreeing with her in someway, where as I actually think its a great post!


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 18, 2007)

Here's what the ADA (American Dietetic Association) has to say:

http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/FRUCTOSE.pdf


----------



## ChefJune (Jul 18, 2007)

soapgirl said:
			
		

> Here's what the ADA (American Dietetic Association) has to say:
> 
> http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/FRUCTOSE.pdf


  No. this article is about Fructose, and not High Fructose Corn Syrup.  They are not the same.


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 18, 2007)

> No. this article is about Fructose, and not High Fructose Corn Syrup. They are not the same.


 
Read about halfway through the article until you get to the section on the safety of fructose; it discusses HFCS.

Here it is copied: 
*Is fructose safe?​*The safety of fructose, both crystalline fructose
and high-fructose corn syrup, has been thoroughly
and consistently documented in authoritative
scientific reviews conducted over the past 25 years.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
concluded, “High fructose [corn] syrup is as safe
for use in food as sucrose, corn sugar, corn syrup
and invert sugar.” An International Life Sciences
Institute (ILSI) Expert Panel concluded, “Fructose
is a valuable, traditional source of food energy, and
there is no basis for recommending increases or
decreases in its use in the general food supply or in
special dietary use products.”​


----------



## ChefJune (Jul 18, 2007)

soapgirl said:
			
		

> Read about halfway through the article until you get to the section on the safety of fructose; it discusses HFCS.
> 
> Here it is copied:
> 
> ...


 If you believe that, I have a bridge I will sell you! There are lots of independent groups, including AARP and Center for Science in the Public Interest, that have uncovered terrible consequences of ingesting HFCS. 

YOU go ahead and eat that stuff if you want to, at your own risk. It has been proven to be one of the causes of childhood obesity in this country, and a major problem re: Type 2 Diabetes. 

But if the government says its okay, I guess so  and we are also winning the war in Iraq. NOT! 

Oh, and thank you for printing that in Bold and huge font. I can read very well. I have been studying this problem for years. and it HAS been a problem for years.

Sorry Mods... if you consider this a detrimental rant, I'll understand if you have to delete it. But if you do, please also remove that screaming post just above it. 

Thanks.


----------



## keltin (Jul 18, 2007)

I don’t think soapgirl posted that as a screaming bit of text....I’m pretty sure it was just a cut-n-paste thing. It happens to me all the time when I type a post offline in Word and then post it here. Formatting gets fried, so occasionally, I’ll use Notepad (which ignores formatting) to defeat any weird formatting issue with a cut-n-paste. Or, just do it the old fashioned way and use the font adjuster in the advanced posting option here at DC.

Anywho, here is a direct cut-n-paste from the PDF that soapgirl pasted from. I didn’t change the font at all, and see how it comes out:





*Is fructose safe?​​​*The safety of fructose, both crystalline fructose​

Yep, it’s big.......it has something to do with translating a cut-n-paste to the Verdana font and font sizes that the DC board uses


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 18, 2007)

> Oh, and thank you for printing that in Bold and huge font. I can read very well. I have been studying this problem for years. and it HAS been a problem for years.


 
I am sincerely sorry if you found the size of the quote offensive. I was not implying anything; it is exactly how I cut and pasted it from the ADA site.

I belive that the ADA is a credible source of information (and I do admit bias, as I am about to become an RD soon). They didn't base their position on HFCS solely on FDA's statements, but on peer-reviewed journal articles and other studies.

Based on personal experience, and monthly visits to a registered dietician/ diabetes educator (I have type 1), my RD recommends avoiding foods with refined sugars and HFCS, but not because it is poison, because the foods are generally highly processed and of little nutritional value. That would be sensible advice for anyone; however, I do think that HFCS and white sugar have been demonized. Inclusion of HFCS in moderation, in an otherwise balanced and healthy diet is not especially problematic.

The problem with most of the HFCS foods is that they are highly processed and devoid of fiber and essential nutrients and tend to be high calorie or high fat foods (sugar cereals, pastries, fruit drinks). Certainly a diet consisting of those types of foods on a regular basis is not healthy for anyone and I would not advise it.

What I do oppose is the tendency to dichotomize foods into good/evil categories. Anyting eaten in excess can be problematic. Most foods consumed in moderation are perfectly fine.


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 18, 2007)

Okay, here I am psoting a link to a site that lists common foods made with HFCS:


Accidental Hedonist - Foods and Products Containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

Most of the foods on the lists are pop-tarts, cookies, candy, ice cream, and crackers. Maybe it is the foods we are consuming and not the HFCS? Just a thought. I doubt that all of these foods made with refined sugar, honey, or any other sweetener would be health foods. And, is a pop-tart really a food, anyway? 

I also wanted to add that I am new here and don't want to come off as rude or snide to anyone (screaming font), but I am very interested in foods and the obesity/diabetes epidemic. I think it would be fair to say that 90% of the foods on that list are so processed they are not even real foods anymore and should be avoided. They have no nutritional value and are high calorie/fat items; however, an occasional treat should not be denied because of the presence of HFCS. The value of the food as a whole needs to be considered and these foods have no place as the dietary staples of some of our youth.

Additionally, here is an article, written by a member of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, that supports my theory that it is the increased consumption of soft drinks, regardless of sweeteners that are to blame for the rise in obesity. 
High-fructose corn syrup and the obesity epidemic -- Jacobson 80 (4): 1081 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Furthermore, I searched the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for studies relating to HFCS. Nutritional analysis reveals that HFCS has roughly a 50/50 ratio of fructorse to glucose, the same as sucrose (table sugar). Studies revealed mixed results of the influence of high fructose consumption in subjects. One study even revealed that a high fructose diet improved glucose tolerance in diabetics. There were indications that fructose raised levels of certian triaglycerols in the blood of humans, and that in rats, combined with a high-fat diet, copper deficiency resulted. None of the studies I found had more than 25 subjects and no correlation between copper deficiency and fructose was found in humans.

Basically, there is no hard and fast research that would define HFCS in itself to be detrimental to the human diet; it is a calorically dense product and the addition of HFCS to foods and soft drinks leads to overconsumption of calories as a whole.

A quote from another AJCN article:


> calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity


----------



## ChefJune (Jul 19, 2007)

> Inclusion of HFCS in moderation, in an otherwise balanced and healthy diet is not especially problematic.


 and therein lies one of the major problems with HFCS.... it's in everything, from frozen dinners, to popcorn, to spaghetti sauce, to mayonnaise, to soups, to yogurt, to.....  I could go on for hours.  It's in literally every prepared food.  One has to read ingredient lists assiduously in order to avoid it, and it is very difficult to..

There's a tablespoon of corn syrup in every tablespoon of Ketchup!  Almost every American I know eats lots of Heinz Ketchup! 

Just one example other than soda....


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 19, 2007)

From CSPI:


> Though not any better or worse nutritionally than plain table sugar, high fructose corn syrup is spawned from a complex, multistep industrial process by which starch is extracted from corn and converted with acids or enzymes into glucose and fructose.


 
From what I gathered on the website, CSPI is primarily against HFCS because it is made from GMO corn and manufactured using GM bacteria(biotechnology), not for nutritional reasons; however, it may be a consideration for environmentally conscious consumers.



> There's a tablespoon of corn syrup in every tablespoon of Ketchup! Almost every American I know eats lots of Heinz Ketchup!


 
Maybe it's not the ketchup that is the problem? What if it is the foods we eat with the ketchup?
- burgers
- fries
- hot dogs



> and therein lies one of the major problems with HFCS.... it's in everything, from frozen dinners, to popcorn, to spaghetti sauce, to mayonnaise, to soups, to yogurt, to..... I could go on for hours. It's in literally every prepared food. One has to read ingredient lists assiduously in order to avoid it, and it is very difficult to..


 
Take HFCS out of packaged foods and they are for the most part, still unhealthy foods. In the list I posted previously of the common foods containing HFCS, few of them would be of any nutritional value if the HFCS were removed. These processed foods would still be loaded with sodium, fats, and preservatives.

The whole point I am trying to make is that society shouldn't take 1 ingredient and demonize it as the cause for obesity and disease. A more common sense approach would be for Americans to reduce the amounts of processed foods, fast foods, and high calorie drinks from their diets.


----------



## Caine (Jul 19, 2007)

soapgirl said:
			
		

> The whole point I am trying to make is that society shouldn't take 1 ingredient and demonize it as the cause for obesity and disease.


 
Then please expalin why the obesity rate in the United States has risen expotentially, and the dramatic increase in the accompanying diseases such as heart disease, type II diabetes, and hypertension, correlates with the advent of HFCS replacing sugar in most commercial products.

HFCS is so bad for you that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration won't even establish a maximum allowable consumption quantity for it.


----------



## Alix (Jul 19, 2007)

Um Caine? I think there are MANY reasons to explain this other than HFCS:




> Then please expalin why the obesity rate in the United States has risen expotentially, and the dramatic increase in the accompanying diseases such as heart disease, type II diabetes, and hypertension, correlates with the advent of HFCS replacing sugar in most commercial products.


 
I could start commenting on societal changes and how kids are less active, video games, urban vs rural demographics, I could even point to a CHAIR LIFT in a water park in Florida so folks wouldn't need to climb all those stairs and get tired out before going down a water slide. The obesity rate cannot be blamed solely on HFCS. It may be a contributing factor in some cases, but you can't demonize (nice term soapgirl, tx) it as being the lone factor. 

Caine, your passion for health comes through very clearly. 

Soapgirl, please don't feel hammered here. Your contribution is very welcome.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 19, 2007)

Human beings get fat because they eat more calories than they need.  It's a matter of personal responsibility.  

You can blame certain foods, or TV ads or whatever else as the bad guy of the day.  But, unless someone is standing next to you with a gun to your head, YOU are making the decision to put food into your mouth.  I'm talking about adults here.  Those same adults overfeed their kids, creating a future generation of fat people.

P.S.  Been overweight for a long time because I love to eat.


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 19, 2007)

> Then please expalin why the obesity rate in the United States has risen expotentially, and the dramatic increase in the accompanying diseases such as heart disease, type II diabetes, and hypertension, correlates with the advent of HFCS replacing sugar in most commercial products.


 
So, if we took all the products that currently are sweetened with HFCS and substituted sucrose, our foods would suddenly be healthier? NOT meant sarcastically, but I don't think so. 

It's because we (Americans, not the people on this board) have drastically increased our consumption of packaged foods, fast foods, and sodas, while decreasing activity.

I found an article pertaining to this in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, regarding soads sweetened with sucrose or HFSC. The resulst was that both sodas were metabolized the same way, with sucrose breaking down into 50/50 frucose and glucose, with HFCS also being broken down into 50/50 frutose and glucose. The conclusion is that both proucts metabolized the same way and had the same effect on both blood glucose and satiety. 

There exists an abudance or research data the documents the trends of increasing soda consumption and larger product sizes in everything from packaged foods to restaurant foods. If sodas were still sweetened with sucrose (white sugar) vs HFCS, increased intake alone would result in the overconsumption of calories and the consequences we are seeing today. Simply put, we are eating too many calories (mostly in the form of junky take-out and boxed foods).

Probably, most of you have seen "Supersize Me" or read "Fast Food Nation". Both of these books explore today's dining and shopping trends in the context of the current obesity and diabetes epidemics. To say that HFCS is the main cause of these epidemics is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics involved in the American food system, and ignoring the decline in physical activity.



> Soapgirl, please don't feel hammered here. Your contribution is very welcome.


 
Thanks! I really like some of the discussions here on this board. I am a college student, and I just wrapped up an education class last semester where I was out in the schools teaching about health and nutrition as it relates to childhood obesity and disease prevention (16-18 year olds). I was appaled that most of them arrived at the class, which was right after lunch hour, fresh from fast-food binges, and toting 1 liter Mountain Dews. 

One day, I did a survey with the kids about fast foods and sodas. Most kids ate fast food EVERY DAY they went to school, because brown bagging it and school lunch are uncool and gross. They reported drinking anywhere from 3-8 sodas a day, size unspecified. Wow! I don't think these kids have to worry about the HFCS in they ketchup and taco sauce the are eating, it is all of the Mc Donald's, Hardee's, and Taco Bell that goes with it.

Finally, most of these kids go home and rarely get a true, healthy, home-cooked meal. It is either something out of a box or off to dine out at another restaurant. 

With lifestyles like this, removing HFCS from foods and substituing another sweetener, would not have much of an impact.



> Caine, your passion for health comes through very clearly.


I have noticed that most people on the board have a profound passion for good food and health. Thank you for welcoming me to the discussion.


----------



## Claire (Jul 20, 2007)

Oh, good greif.  We get fat because we eat more than we exercise.  Simple.  Believe me, I know, I've been overweight most of my life (not life-threatening, none of my docs have told me to lose weight, even though I'm about 30 lbs over by the best estimates.  I'm quite tall, and workout a lot, but am honest with myself.  I weigh too much).  No one ingredient does it.  Do you eat chips when an apple would do it?  Do you eat candy when an orange might work?  As I said, I know.  I think we all know, or we wouldn't subscribe to this web site.


----------



## Caine (Jul 20, 2007)

soapgirl said:
			
		

> So, if we took all the products that currently are sweetened with HFCS and substituted sucrose, our foods would suddenly be healthier? NOT meant sarcastically, but I don't think so.


 
Actually, yes, you would be healthier, because when you ingest succrose, your body knows exactly what to do with it. Your pancreas releases insulin, which is like providing a key to unlock your cells so that they can utilize the sugar, and either use it immediately for energy, or, if no energy is needed (that is where the exercise part comes in) stores it as fat. This has been proven to NOT be the case with HFCS! Your body seems to think it's a fat, not a sugar so, your pancreas does NOT release insulin, it is never absorbed by your cells for use as energy, and your body just stores it as fat. Now, you're going to have to work twice as hard (there's the exercise part again!) to burn off all that extra fat you have stored due to ingesting HFCS.

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on - _Sonny & Cher_


----------



## IainDaniel (Jul 20, 2007)

Not that it is anything new, but some more about HFCS

Log In Problems


Fructose but Not Glucose Consumption Linked to Atherogenic Lipid Profile

Emma Hitt, PhD
Information from Industry
Reduce risk factors for CVD and T2DM Visit the cardiometabolic condition site and review a range of data and approaches to reducing the threat of cardiovascular disease, including a newly discovered physiologic system, a group of modifiable risk factors, and much more.


July 5, 2007 â€” Fructose, a sugar used for sweetening most soft drinks in the United States and elsewhere, has been linked to an increased atherogenic profile relative to glucose in a short-term study of overweight/obese adults.

Peter J. Havel, DVM, PhD, a research professor from the Department of Nutrition at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues presented the findings at the American Diabetes Association 67th Scientific Sessions in Chicago, Illinois.

"Soft drink consumption is, for most people, the largest source of dietary fructose," Dr. Havel told Medscape. "Of course, fructose is present in fruit too, but at much lower levels, and...fruit contains many other nutrients."

Dr. Havel and colleagues studied 23 subjects with a body mass index of 23 to 35 kg/m2. In the beginning of the study, participants stayed in a clinical facility for 2 weeks while consuming an energy-balanced diet containing a moderate (30%) level of fat and 55% complex carbohydrates. Baseline blood measurements were made.

Subjects then began an 8-week outpatient intervention, consuming drinks that made up 25% of their daily energy needs. The drinks were sweetened with either fructose (n = 13) or glucose (n = 10). The rest of the participants' diet was self-selected.

At the end of the 8-week intervention, subjects returned to the clinical facility for 2 additional weeks and consumed either glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages along with the same energy-balanced diet consumed during the first 2-week stay.

Relative to baseline, 24-hour postprandial triglyceride profiles were increased by 212% ± 59% in the fructose-consuming group (P < .0001). In contrast, levels declined by about one third (âˆ’30% ± 23%) in the glucose-consuming group. In addition, fasting plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C); apolipoprotein B; and small, dense LDL-C, as well as postprandial levels of remnant lipoprotein (RLP)-triglycerides and RLP-cholesterol, were all significantly increased (P < .01) in the fructose group. By comparison, these levels remained unchanged in the glucose group.

Fructose-consuming participants also demonstrated increased plasma concentrations of the atherogenic risk factors oxidized LDL-C (P < .0001) and intracellular adhesion molecule (P < .05), but those consuming glucose did not.

"Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages containing fructose has increased by 135% from 1977 to 2001 and may be a contributing factor to an increased incidence of metabolic syndrome," the authors note in their abstract.

According to Dr. Havel, most soft drinks in the United States are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, which is a mixture of about 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

"It is known that fructose, after being metabolized by the liver, is more likely to go into a lipogenic pathway than glucose," Dr. Havel noted. "So these results were not surprising to us, but the magnitude of some of the changes was striking," he added.

"While this is an interim report, the findings do suggest that persons at risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia should limit consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages. It is unclear, however, whether a nonatherogenic level of fructose consumption exists, and what that might be."

According to Amy Hess-Fischl, MS, RD, LDN, BC-ADM, CDE, diabetes educator/coordinator from the Adolescent and Teen Diabetes Program, University of Chicago Comprehensive Diabetes Center, Chicago, Illinois, who moderated the session at the meeting, although this study was conducted in overweight and obese individuals, other studies indicate that the atherogenic effect of fructose may extend to normal-weight individuals as well.

However, Ms. Fischl told Medscape that controversy exists over the extent of atherogenicity associated with fructose consumption: "On the basis of these findings, fructose consumed at 25% of total energy had a negative effect, while another study found that 17% of total energy had a negative impact."

"Finding the safe limit will be key, and more research is needed to identify those persons most at risk," noted Ms. Fischl. "Until then, healthcare professionals can recommend that, based on several studies, limiting consumption of fructose-containing beverages is probably beneficial."

American Diabetes Association 67th Scientific Sessions: Abstract 0062-OR. Presented June 23, 2007.


----------



## soapgirl (Jul 20, 2007)

> Fructose but Not Glucose Consumption Linked to Atherogenic Lipid Profile


 
Thanks for posting that study!

I can't imagine someone drinking enough soda that 17-25% of their daily energy intake would be fructose!


----------



## BBQ Mikey (Jul 20, 2007)

Fructose also makes you hungry(er) than if you had not consumed it. I used to be hooked on energy drinks and found the ones containing high fructose corn syrup increased my appetite whereas the sugarless ones did not.

My father is a wise man and knows a thing or two about good health, and claims "high fructose corn syrup is the devil".


----------



## IainDaniel (Jul 21, 2007)

Fructose at least in the form of fruit should not make you hungrier.  It refills liver glycogen, which causes a full feeling.


----------



## BBQ Mikey (Jul 21, 2007)

i should have clarified, rather than Fructose i meant High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is high in sugar and calories in comparsion to its weight and capacity to fill ones stomach.  Fructose naturally occuring in fruit is definately healthier and more filling.


----------

