High-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity

wbarnhill

wbarnhill

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
7,901
Location
Greenwood, SC
Display Name
Display name:
iEXTERMINATE
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.

The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.
Click to expand...

Time to scrap the travesty that is HFCS.
 
Calories burned > calories consumed and it doesn't matter what you eat in regards to weight gain.
 
HFCS is De Debil.......


:devil:
 
EdFred said:
Calories burned > calories consumed and it doesn't matter what you eat in regards to weight gain.
Click to expand...

Bingo! When Rachel started leading Weight Watchers meetings, I said I wouldn't make a good WW leader. All I would do is tell people "Get off our butt and eat less. That'll be $75, please."
 
huh... well, if I recall correctly:

sugar = 50% glucose, 50% fructose

HFCS= 45% glucose, 55% fructose


Just doesn't seem like there's all that much difference between 'em... :confused:
 
rpadula said:
I think we have a contest for the next fly-in!!! :devil:
Click to expand...

Great idea! :D

If you really want to do it right, you gotta make a really big Skinner Box, though.

skinner_box-1.jpg



Trapper John
 
Jeezum crow, did anyone actually read the opening paragraph?

News at Princeton said:
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

The problem is more complex than "eating too much". What might be considered a normal caloric intake sans-HFCS, but with the sweetener package changed to HFCS, there is a measureable difference in weight gain for the same calories consumed. Hence, "not all sweetener calories are the same".

In and of itself, HFCS was not linked to obesity. It was linked to metabolic syndrome in rats (study # 2), and increased weight gain at the same caloric intake relative to other sweetners (study #1)

Sigh...

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
etsisk said:
huh... well, if I recall correctly:

sugar = 50% glucose, 50% fructose

HFCS= 45% glucose, 55% fructose


Just doesn't seem like there's all that much difference between 'em... :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

Cane sugar is sucrose, which is a disaccharide (glucose and fructose chemically bonded). HFCS is a solution of two monosaccharides (glucose and fructose), with water (~25% by volume). Our bodies use sucrolase (sp?), an enzyme that breaks down and regulates the uptake of the sugar products. HFCS, on the other hand, does not need to be broken down, as it is already in the monosaccharide component.

HFCS is also in different blends -- I think 55/45 is for candy, and 58/42 is for soda, but I may have that mixed up.

Cheers,

-Andrew
reading "On Food and Cooking" right now
 
CJones said:
Bingo! When Rachel started leading Weight Watchers meetings, I said I wouldn't make a good WW leader. All I would do is tell people "Get off our butt and eat less. That'll be $75, please."
Click to expand...
While I'd probably be the same way I notice people saying this are on the lighter side. I've seen pictures of both EdFred and you and I'm guessing that neither one of you have a weight problem. I always wondered how people manage to get really heavy since I am uncomfortable when I eat too much. Then there's my mom who eats dessert for every meal, is 93 and has never been overweight.
 
Everskyward said:
While I'd probably be the same way I notice people saying this are on the lighter side. I've seen pictures of both EdFred and you and I'm guessing that neither one of you have a weight problem. I always wondered how people manage to get really heavy since I am uncomfortable when I eat too much. Then there's my mom who eats dessert for every meal, is 93 and has never been overweight.
Click to expand...

All I have to do is look at the diets and exercise of the people I know that are overweight, and I usually have my answer. My buddy is 6-5, 320ish, and didn't get that way until he moved out of mom and dad's place and just started eating junk food, and lots and lots of it, and quit playing sports. Asks me why he can't lose weight, I ask him, how long he exercises for, if and when he does. His answer is 20 minutes. Uh, yeah, you aren't even going to start burning off stuff until you hit 20 minutes. But I get bored, he says. He says he plays basketball for an hour every day at lunch. But it's 1/2 court, and guess where he plays, low post. So he doesn't move on offense or defense.

I gained 20lbs from labor day through about the end of January simply because my back was giving me issues, and I wasn't very mobile. After going to Florida for a week, and playing ball, and now getting outside since the weather has broke, I've dropped 10 pounds in the last month. Just from that little bit of exercising.
 
astanley said:
Well, yes and no.

Cane sugar is sucrose, which is a disaccharide (glucose and fructose chemically bonded). HFCS is a solution of two monosaccharides (glucose and fructose), with water (~25% by volume). Our bodies use sucrolase (sp?), an enzyme that breaks down and regulates the uptake of the sugar products. HFCS, on the other hand, does not need to be broken down, as it is already in the monosaccharide component.

HFCS is also in different blends -- I think 55/45 is for candy, and 58/42 is for soda, but I may have that mixed up.

Cheers,

-Andrew
reading "On Food and Cooking" right now
Click to expand...

Andrew,

Not speaking for the others I'm just kind of tired of all of these kinds of studies. I know damn well what will make fatter and am intelligent enough to know how to stop it.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejrVzCcwXcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjDk5wnySD8


fwiw, i lost 40 lbs on the south beach diet and didn't hit a lick of exercise doing it. HFCS is in virtually every processed foodstuff and soda drinks because it is cheaper than using sugar. Corn products are everywhere. Beef cattle are fed large amounts of corn, because, guess what, they pay by the pound at the slaughter house. If you want to make a long lasting effect on the obesity problem, eliminate corn from the food chain. I'm not talking about popcorn or sweet corn, but the corn used in processed food and animal feed.

also, people were eating natural sugar a long time before HFCS was introduced. The problem of obesity was much less prevalent then. The correlation has been made before, this study is old news.
 
Last edited:
astanley said:
Jeezum crow, did anyone actually read the opening paragraph?



Emphasis mine.

The problem is more complex than "eating too much". What might be considered a normal caloric intake sans-HFCS, but with the sweetener package changed to HFCS, there is a measureable difference in weight gain for the same calories consumed. Hence, "not all sweetener calories are the same".

In and of itself, HFCS was not linked to obesity. It was linked to metabolic syndrome in rats (study # 2), and increased weight gain at the same caloric intake relative to other sweetners (study #1)

Sigh...

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Waiting for someone to post on the metabolic effects of artificial sweeteners.... you can drink all the diet soda in the world and still get fat.
 
I just tell people I'm on the Law of Conservation of Energy diet. I consume less calories than I burn, so by God, I'm going to lose weight or else the universe will simply collapse upon itself!

26 lbs loss since December :) Another 15 or so to go.
 
Andrew has it right. Some things are going to be more likely to cause weight gain or other issues than others, even for the same calorie content. HFCS is one of those. Near as I can tell, there's no reason why they need to use it instead of sugar. Artificial sweeteners contribute to weight gain as well (hence why I always laugh at "diet" sodas).

Agreed that most people who need to lose weight would be best served by using a little self control, exercising, and eating. Get a dog and take it for daily walks. That doesn't mean that there aren't certain foods that aren't worse than others.
 
Steve said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejrVzCcwXcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjDk5wnySD8


fwiw, i lost 40 lbs on the south beach diet and didn't hit a lick of exercise doing it. HFCS is in virtually every processed foodstuff and soda drinks because it is cheaper than using sugar. Corn products are everywhere. Beef cattle are fed large amounts of corn, because, guess what, they pay by the pound at the slaughter house. If you want to make a long lasting effect on the obesity problem, eliminate corn from the food chain. I'm not talking about popcorn or sweet corn, but the corn used in processed food and animal feed.

also, people were eating natural sugar a long time before HFCS was introduced. The problem of obesity was much less prevalent then. The correlation has been made before, this study is old news.
Click to expand...
I would think that the HUGE increase in "portion size" at restaurants and as exhibited in advertising has changed the eat-at-home portion size, equally hugely - and THAT has more to do with our weight gain than anything else, food-wise. Add to that that we've become more sedentary in our jobs and away from work... it just adds up.
 
etsisk said:
I would think that the HUGE increase in "portion size" at restaurants and as exhibited in advertising has changed the eat-at-home portion size, equally hugely - and THAT has more to do with our weight gain than anything else, food-wise. Add to that that we've become more sedentary in our jobs and away from work... it just adds up.
Click to expand...

Tom, you've hit one of my pet peeves. I would be happy to have have of what they serve at a restaurant while paying a 1/3rd less. I'm sure that sounds kind of dumb but I think they could do that and we'd be plenty happy.
 
EppyGA said:
Tom, you've hit one of my pet peeves. I would be happy to have have of what they serve at a restaurant while paying a 1/3rd less. I'm sure that sounds kind of dumb but I think they could do that and we'd be plenty happy.
Click to expand...
I agree...when traveling for work and I don't need to be with a customer/vendor, I'll just get an appetizer to go from the local restaurant or something simple (and small) from the food mart.
 
etsisk said:
I would think that the HUGE increase in "portion size" at restaurants and as exhibited in advertising has changed the eat-at-home portion size, equally hugely - and THAT has more to do with our weight gain than anything else, food-wise. Add to that that we've become more sedentary in our jobs and away from work... it just adds up.
Click to expand...

Simple solution. Cut it in half and take it home with you. That's what I do any more.
 
Michael Montague, I think his name is, wrote a book called "Eat Yourself Slim." He pointed out that various foods have different glycemic indexes, with some metabolizing quickly into glucose and then stored as fat, while others, even some with identical caloric contents, are much slower and aren't absorbed nearly so much. At any rate, when we paid attention to avoiding high-GI foods, we lost weight. See this:
http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index-food-chart.htm

Note that GI is not the same as calorie content.

Montague also gave some stats on sugar consumption. In the US the average person consumes something like 250 pounds of it in a year, much of it in the form of soft drinks. A 2-litre (about 2 quarts) bottle of Coke has the equivalent of 46 cubes of sugar in it. In Europe, specifically France, the average person consumes only 20 or 30 pounds of sugar. Is it any wonder North Americans are so big?

Dan
 
EppyGA said:
Andrew,

Not speaking for the others I'm just kind of tired of all of these kinds of studies. I know damn well what will make fatter and am intelligent enough to know how to stop it.
Click to expand...

Why should they stop? What they've proven is, yes, some of the anecdotal evidence around HFCS is true, and we may know something about the mechanism of why it is true. While I cannot state that I'm up-to-date on the latest scholarship in metabolic science, I do not believe we had a conclusive, rigorous study that demonstrated how HFCS is different from sugar. Ergo, this study contributes something valuable (scientifically reinforces anecdotal knowledge).

"I know damn well", in this context, means "I know well from anecdotal evidence" and "I know damn well from studies on other topics, such as fats and cholesterol". There is a distinct value to all scientific study, some of which we are unable to grasp or understand until far, far later.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
flyersfan31 said:
Simple solution. Cut it in half and take it home with you. That's what I do any more.
Click to expand...
That works if you are at home but most of my eating out is done on the road. I just leave it on my plate but it kills a lot of people to do that.
 
Everskyward said:
That works if you are at home but most of my eating out is done on the road. I just leave it on my plate but it kills a lot of people to do that.
Click to expand...

I'm one of them. I was expected to normally finish my food at dinner, and my school brainwashed me with the whole thing about starving children in Africa. We were taught not to waste food.

There are a lot of people I know who end up ordering kids portions at certain restaurants. Some have such huge portions that the kids portion is a standard adult portion. A proper meal should leave you satisfied, not stuffed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I was expected to normally finish my food at dinner, and my school brainwashed me with the whole thing about starving children in Africa. We were taught not to waste food.
Click to expand...
Did you listen to everything your mom and your teachers said? :rofl:

I was taught to clean my plate too but that didn't stick...
 
Everskyward said:
Did you listen to everything your mom and your teachers said? :rofl:
Click to expand...

I think you know me well enough to know the answer to that. :)

I was taught to clean my plate too but that didn't stick...
Click to expand...

Yeah, and some things didn't stick with me either. For some reason that was. I try not to be wasteful in terms of having something and not using it. Food rotting or throwing away good items drives me nuts. We'll ignore my fuel consumption habits. ;)
 
EppyGA said:
Tom, you've hit one of my pet peeves. I would be happy to have have of what they serve at a restaurant while paying a 1/3rd less. I'm sure that sounds kind of dumb but I think they could do that and we'd be plenty happy.
Click to expand...

Anyone else notice this news story this week? Link to article

article said:
A study done by two sibling scholars prove how our diets have drastically "super-sized" over the past 1,000 years, through 52 depictions of an infamous painting originating back to a historical art icon... Leonardo daVinci.
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
Did you listen to everything your mom and your teachers said? :rofl:

I was taught to clean my plate too but that didn't stick...
Click to expand...

You mean about the starving children in Africa? :rofl: Let them come over here and eat MY turnips! :lol:
 
jnmeade said:
Yeah, if you don't like there is no reason to eat it.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that it's in just about everything. It would be easier to be a vegetarian than to avoid HFCS. And we all know how annoying vegetarians are. :D (ducking, running).
 
HFCS is a good current whipping boy. If their study found HFCS no worse than other sweeteners do you think their grant would have been renewed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top