Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

[Mari333]

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.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.













http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/


just as we all suspected.

[Chipper Chat]

1. Corn syrup makes drinks taste overly-sweet.

But I guess that was the purpose when Coke & Pepsi switched to HFCS. I recently ordered some original Dr. Pepper from the one plant that still bottles it with the original formula (with sugar instead of corn syrup). I was initially shocked that it didn't taste "sweet." But after about 10 cans I love the taste of the original like it tasted back in the 50s.

[rfranklin]

11. I loved Coke with sugar, when I tasted the first corn syrup version...

I thought it had "gone bad." I should have given it up then, but my dentist needed to send three kids through college...

[Chipper Chat]

29. I can't explain scientifically why oldtime soft drinks tasted better

but I can remember when "pop" was sold only in bottles out of coolers where you had to manually open the lid and pull a bottle horizontally from a suspended rack. The bottles were swimming in circulating 33o water. An opener was on the side of the cooler. After YOU PAID the gas station attendant a nickel you were free to guzzle. And what a taste!

[jeff47]

112. Part of it is age

When we're younger, our taste buds are MUCH more sensitive, especially to sugars.

[Javaman]

205. It's the glass bottles.

plastic bottles stunt and change the flavor. Aside from the HFCS.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

216. AH, the secret to scotch's success.

And no high fructose shit to pollute the taste.

[Saphire]

86. Mexican coke with sugar cane...you can get it at stores here in San Antonio.

[izzybeans]

96. Definitely way better.

[AllyCat]

108. We buy the natural sodas available here like Blue Sky and Izze

We don't buy the brand name stuff out there. The kids much prefer the natural sodas to the others that the grandparents give them (grrr!!!)

[kenfrequed]

144. Yes!

You can occasionally even get Mexican Coca-Cola up here in Minnesota. It comes in neat nostalgic glass bottles. It is a thousand times better than the plastic bottle HFC variety. Soda companies should switch back to sugar immediately.

[cascadiance]

159. Glass bottles are also better for you than plastic. Get Mexican coke at Costco...

I'd seen some reports of problems discovered with plastic used for bottle containers versus glass over the last few months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254534/Fruit-juice-cancer-warning-scientists-harmful-chemical-16-drinks.html

Another reason to drink Mexican coke too. Though hopefully we can find ways in the future of reusing those bottles rather than energy consumptive means of recycling glass too.

Mexican coke should be available at a Costco near you, a decent store for us for many other reasons as well. It was only pulled off the shelves for a few weeks a little while ago when Costco had a spat with Coca Cola company about pricing of its U.S. based drinks versus Pepsico.

[thereismore]

169. They carry Mexican-made Coke at Costco here in SoCal. nt

[Captain Hilts]

89. Run out NOW and buy kosher coke!!

[Patiod]

91. We love it! Yay Passover!

One of our Jewish friends gives us some every year.

We've stopped drinking soda because of the HFCS. Probably for the best anyway. I've been making pitchers of iced tea with a 1980's Ice Tea Maker, and then adding just enough simple syrup (sugar and water boiled into a liquid) to make it reasonably sweet.

But once a year, we love the throwback taste of an old fashioned sugar-sweetened Coke at Passover!

[Captain Hilts]

93. I sometimes drink it on weekends, but always fountain coke. nt

[LaPera]

170. Pepsi & Mountain Dew (no Dr. Pepper though) is coming back with their old original sugar version

recipes of Pepsi & Mountain Dew next month across the country, no fructose or corn syrup....Pepsi is only offering the original sugar version for about two month's... then back to the fructose!

[Chipper Chat]

206. Here's a link to Dublin Dr Pepper (with Imperial sugar)

http://www.dublindrpepper.com/history.aspx?odrd=true&setuser=
You can mail-order it but , of course, the shipping is what kills ya.

[LaPera]

243. Right the shipping makes it silly & unrealistic - So I can handle just having Pepsi

at a low price in all the stores for a couple of month's...I stopped drinking Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and the rest of that shit with corn sweeteners years ago....

Even the "new" (old recipe) Pepsi will be offering next month with sugar is not that good for one to drink, but much much better than than the Fructose & corn syrup shit.

Again, I'll enjoy couple of Pepsi's, the sugar version, a couple of times a week, that Pepsi will be offering for the next two month's starting in April..... and maybe even stock up on a couple of cases since the price will be the same as Pepsi corn sweetener shit....that will follow after the two month's of the sugar version are up.

I confess I will enjoy a sugar version of Pepsi one or twice a week.

[SPedigrees]

239. You can make your own sugar sweetened soda by mixing sugar and flavor into

carbonated water. I do that occasionally, although I more often prefer to drink the fizzy water straight.

Our local supermarket carries some brands of soda that are sweetened with sugar only, in their organic food section. We sometimes buy a 6 pack of these too. They taste good, like the soda pop I drank as a kid.

[my2sense]

2. +1

[LisaM]

3. Can anyone really be surprised?

If we can get this poison out of our foods, the health care crisis will be less of a crisis.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Hmm.

The article finds a statistically significant difference in rats fed a HFCS diet compared to their regular chow diet. But no statistical difference between a diet high in HFCS and a diet high in sucrose.

This is consistent with previous studies indicating that diets high in sugars lead to increased body weight but the difference between HFCS and sucrose is not significant.

[kestrel91316]

7. Somehow you always find your way onto these threads, lol.....

Can we call you Corny for short??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Well, this is general discussion.

There's always the woo woo forum if you'd like to post stuff that goes unchallenged.

[kestrel91316]

10. Mind you, I'm not complaining. It's just that whenever I see HFCS in a

headline, the next thing I do is scan down to see how long it took for you to come, because the post IS about YOU in a way, right???

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I'll admit a particular fondness for this topic.

It's my olive garden/breast feeding/pitbull.

It's why I picked this username after all.

[kestrel91316]

21. I will admit that the science is definitely not settled WRT HFCS. I choose to

avoid it out of an abundance of caution, and also as an anti-corporate policy, and then of course because I prefer to eat minimally processed foods where possible.

But I think lack of willpower/lack of physical activity is half the obesity problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. GWB says the same thing about global warming and evolution.

[kestrel91316]

40. Well, I'm undecided, and don't have a dog in the fight, so what matters most to me

is that it be labelled and people can make a personal choice whether to consume it or not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. It already is labeled.

Perhaps you were thinking about GMOs.

A completely unrelated issue.

[kestrel91316]

47. No, no, lol. Just saying I support labelling. But it would be appropriate for GMO's to be labelled,

too, while we're on the subject.

[SpiralHawk]

73. Actually, very much related

Since HFCS is generally oozing buckets of mutant crud from GMO corn.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. So, one could say that a rise in the use of sugar in substitution of HFCS...

...could be detrimental to, let's say, Monsanto's bottom line?

Yeah, makes sense.

[BrklynLiberal]

210. BINGO!!!!!!!!!! Exactly!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

220. I don't know, isn't Monsanto going into the sugar beet industry?

There's definitely competition between the corn industry and the sugarcane/sugar beet industry.

Why all the woo woos love the sugar industry is beyond me. Talk about some evil corporate bastards.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

105. Sorry to butt in but...

the claim that the abstract misrepresents the data is false.

4. Discussion

In Experiment 1 (short-term study, 8 weeks), male rats with access to HFCS drank less total volume and ingested fewer calories in the form of HFCS (mean = 18.0 kcal) than the animals with identical access to a sucrose solution (mean = 27.3 kcal), but the HFCS rats, never the less, became overweight. In these males, both 24-h and 12-h access to HFCS led to increased body weight. In Experiment 2 (long-term study, 6–7 months), HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats. This increase in body weight was accompanied by an increase in fat accrual and circulating levels of TG, shows that this increase in body weight is reflective of obesity.

The person claiming that there is a misrepresentation is cherry picking data from a table on a paper behind a firewall and depending on the lack of public access to allow for successful misrepresentation of the researcher's results. The above paragraph clearly summarizes the totality of their data.

[NashVegas]

115. Even What IS Public Access Show the Poster Is Bullshitting

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.

Publicly available, in the OP link. The poster is relying on others being too lazy to look for themselves.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. From table 1:

Experiment 2:

1. 24-h HFCS + ad libitum chow 355±12*
2. 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow 323±9
3. 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow 333±10
4. Ad libitum chow 328±10

* Statistical difference between chow and HFCS. You'll notice the difference between sucrose and HFCS is not statistically different.

Now look at Figure 3.

Do you see a statistical difference between sucrose and HFCS? Because I don't. In fact, the sucrose rats are a little bit fatter at nearly every point in the curve.

[kristopher]

128. You are making false claims.

There is no reason to refute anything further you say - you've proven that you have zero regard for the facts and are intent on deception.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. No, you're making false claims.

You're welcome to debate instead of weaseling out of this.

[kristopher]

133. The debate was over when I demonstrated that you are intent on deception

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. You haven't demonstrated my intent at the deception.

I'm simply citing the actual data.

[rhett o rick]

136. Explain this quote from the article:

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. It's either wrong, or a half truth.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests"

Their paper compared HFCS against sucrose and against just regular chow. Their paper found no difference between HFCS and sucrose, but a difference between HFCS and chow.

I personally wouldn't consider chow to be a "sweenter" but there you have it.

"When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese "

Well that is a conclusion that their data supports, yes. Give rats lots of sugar, and they get fat. Is there a difference between HFCS and sucrose? Not according to their data.

Now there was an experiment conducted where they gave rats access to HFCS for 24 h. And access to HFCS for 12 h. And access to sucrose for 12h. Now they see a difference between 24h HFCS vs. 12h sucrose, but that's not a properly designed control. And if that's the source for the claim in the Princeton article, then they're being fundamentally dishonest.

[kristopher]

143. You really have no sense of shame do you?

You just wrote this flat-out false statement AGAIN:
"Their paper compared HFCS against sucrose and against just regular chow. Their paper found no difference between HFCS and sucrose, but a difference between HFCS and chow."

The paper DID find a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between HFCS and sucrose.


From the study:

In Experiment 1 (short-term study, 8 weeks), male rats with access to HFCS drank less total volume and ingested fewer calories in the form of HFCS (mean = 18.0 kcal) than the animals with identical access to a sucrose solution (mean = 27.3 kcal), but the HFCS rats, never the less, became overweight.

In these males, both 24-h and 12-h access to HFCS led to increased body weight.

In Experiment 2 (long-term study, 6–7 months), HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats.

This increase in body weight was accompanied by an increase in fat accrual and circulating levels of TG, shows that this increase in body weight is reflective of obesity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. "The paper DID find a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between HFCS and sucrose."

Not when they compared similar conditions they didn't.

The 12h access HFCS vs the 12h access sucrose showed no significant difference.

I've no reason to be ashamed, Kristopher.

I'm right. You're wrong. Get over it.

[kristopher]

149. You are using cherry picked snips in an attempt to deceive people -

Discussion

In Experiment 1 (short-term study, 8 weeks), male rats with access to HFCS drank less total volume and ingested fewer calories in the form of HFCS (mean = 18.0 kcal) than the animals with identical access to a sucrose solution (mean = 27.3 kcal), but the HFCS rats, never the less, became overweight. In these males, both 24-h and 12-h access to HFCS led to increased body weight. In Experiment 2 (long-term study, 6–7 months), HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats. This increase in body weight was accompanied by an increase in fat accrual and circulating levels of TG, shows that this increase in body weight is reflective of obesity.

[dustbunnie]

150. You are correct. That is all. n/t

[stray cat]

16. That sounds like the headline is totally bogus then - facts are pesky things

In other words eating less sugar of any sort helps prevent weight gain

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. When ever you read a scientific story in popular press...

you're on safe ground if you assume everything about the article is wrong, and just go straight away to the original source.

There's a whole subgenre of geek humor concerning science news and their daily gaffes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=247&topic_id=26543

[Chemisse]

27. You should read the article for yourself

It's hardly junk science, coming out of Princeton University.

[LooseWilly]

76. Did you read the OP??

It says HFCS vs. table sugar... HighFructosePronSyrup made a handy substitution in his spin-prose to vs. rat chow.

He's changed the entire terms of the OP in a completely disingenuous manner. Re-read the OP... HFPS has attempted to hijack the premise with some sort of presumption that table sugar is a significant component of rat chow. That is bullshit. There is no sugar in the rat chow that he spuriously inserted into the discussion. That is a complete lie. The OP is about HFCS vs table sugar...

[SPedigrees]

26. Clearly you did not read the article.

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. ......

This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. I did read the article.

The original article in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior.

The claims in the Princeton article are not backed up by the findings in the research article.

[Agony]

34. Clearly you did not read the article.

from the PBB article
***
Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more
body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same
number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects
of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the
course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body
weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in
adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to
humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of
obesity.
***

I suppose you might fit in this group...

***
However, many have refuted the conjecture that
HFCS alone is at fault, suggesting that sugars in general are the
problem (Melanson et al., 2008).
***

The whole abstract

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United
States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the
findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight,
body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for
short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad
libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more
body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same
number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects
of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the
course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body
weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in
adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to
humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of
obesity.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Thank you.

Would you please post a link?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I'll refer you to table 1 and figure 3.

The 12h access HFCS rats actually ended up with lower body weight than the sucrose control, albeit it's not statistically significant. Shows no significant difference between 12h access HFCS vs. sucrose, and does not jibe with the abstract.

[Johonny]

50. I'll I can do at home IS look at those graphs

and those graphs don't back up that pop press article at all. Have no idea what's in the whole article because I don't get Sciencedirect at home. When you look at the data, it's hard to get what they are saying out of them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

52. Why would such a misleading sentence be in the abstract then?

"Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose."

(Article is for pay. I won't spend $31.50 to read it.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Beats me.

But the data clearly shows that's not true.

[closeupready]

81. And it's not true, because you say so. I'm glad you cleared that up.

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. It's not true because their data says so.

Their data trumps their abstract.

[kenfrequed]

155. err...

So somehow the peer review process totally failed? Somehow the researches snuck in an abstract to their own paper that was completely manufactured to make High Fructose corn syrup look bad? Somehow I will put more stock in a peer reviewed paper and their interpretation of their data than on some random guy on the internet who clearly has an interest in high fructose corn syrup that is so important to him that it somehow makes it into his name.

Really that is all anyone who reads the abstract has measure:

Guy on the internet vs. Peer reviewed paper.

Sorry but if I believe 'guy on the internet' I may as well give up and become a climate change denier too.

[closeupready]

157. I know, right? Talk about delusions of grandeur... Sheez. "I know better than Princeton Universit

University scholars how to analyze the data they collected, because I say so."

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

166. Argument from authority.

It's a classic logical fallacy.

[kenfrequed]

232. You did not read the study.

You cherry picked one line from it that you distorted to fit your opinion. An opinion that the totality of the research does not support scientifically. By the way, it is only a logical fallacy if you resort to authority Without the evidence of subsequent support to back it up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

165. Listen, this is how science works.

The data in their paper is fine and should have passed peer review, the line in the abstract is at best misleading and probably shouldn't have.

You can trust some random guy on the internet or you can trust some random guy at Princeton, or you can get yourself an education and think for yourself instead.

"Really that is all anyone who reads the abstract has measure"

The problem is, if all you read is the abstract then all you'll do is continue to be wrong.

[kenfrequed]

231. Sorry but you have no credibility

You have already demonstrated a desire to spin the facts to fit whatever your agenda happens to be. I doubt if any negative research about High Fructose Corn Syrup would have any effect on what you have decided to believe.

I trust the researchers and scientists that did the research and not only analyzed all of the data, but wrote the report as well as the abstract. It is just not credible that the abstract would be completely opposite the data and the totality of the written paper. If you believe that, than you have no idea the level of scrutiny that inevitably comes with the peer review process.

[closeupready]

156. No, thanks - I'll go with the experts here, unless you do research for Harvard or Yale, do you?

I rather doubt it, considering that your profile indicates you are in rural Oregon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. Did you ever actually go to college yourself?

Because the idea that research papers coming out of Princeton, Harvard, or Yale having some sort of inherent superiority is really humorously naive.

It's cute.

[rog]

171. It seems we have a middle school student here ...

... who is determined to be as annoying as possible.

I suggest no replies unless there is SOME substance in his posts.

Actually, his screen name is quite apt ... just like HFCS there's no nutritional value here, only toxicity.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. But rog, there's been plenty of substance to my posts.

I've been talking about the data in this study the whole time, but you've refused to respond to it.

So who's acting immaturely?

[rog]

175. Whining does nothing for your credibility.

Sorry, son ... everyone sees through you. You're just wasting bandwidth, and the crocodile tears are not attractive.

Perhaps we can talk about real science now, before this turns into a flame war.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. Who's whining?

I'm ready to address science whenever you are.

[rog]

191. So you don't deny that you may be an annoying middle schooler, then.

That explains a lot ... thanks.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

194. I could be a drunken third grader with a head injury.

But considering that I'm winning this debate, that doesn't make you look very good.

[rog]

196. OK ... that explains everything.

I'm sorry if I was unkind in any way, and I hope sincerely that you recover eventually. I hope you have a great neurosurgeon and that your parents have found a good 12 step program for you.

All the best for a speedy recovery.

.rog.

[closeupready]

180. Does your deflection indicate the answer is that Gonzaga is the best you've got?

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

181. My deflection?

Did you even finish high school?

[closeupready]

188. If that's all you have, welcome back to my ignore list.

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

189. closeupready, you wanted to talk about alma maters...

instead of addressing the problems of the research paper.

That, kiddo, is deflection.

I lost an argument
With you today
I'm putting you on Ignore

"I wish you'd answer
My questions," you say
I'm putting you on Ignore

I moved back my goal posts
My strawman went long
I'm putting you on Ignore

Your facts are stupid
Your opinion is wrong
I'm putting you on Ignore

You won't let me win
Your logic's absurd
I'm putting you on Ignore

You misplaced that comma
You misspelt that word
I'm putting you on Ignore

You should be on Fox News
You'd fit right in
I'm putting you on Ignore

Shut up! Shut up!
Shut up! Shut up!
I'm putting you on Ignore

You always resort to
Ad hominem attacks
I'm putting you on Ignore

You stinky ugly
Dumb poopyhead hack
I'm putting you on Ignore

I asked your opinion
But it wasn't like mine
I'm putting you on Ignore

I don't care for yours
I'd rather just whine
I'm putting you on Ignore

You debunked my rave
You derailed my rant
Say sorry, I mustn't
Continue, I can't
I just wish you weren't
So ignorant
I'm putting you on Ignore.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. I'll reserve judgment until I'm able to see the article and resolve this apparent incongruity.

And if you insinuate that this stand is, in any way, shape, or form, equivalent to a woo-woo position like you did with kestrel91316 above, then I'll happily tell you to fuck yourself with a genetically-engineered pineapple, sideways. I hope you'll know better.

[kristopher]

110. The abstract is not misleading - the other poster is.

The claims that the abstract is misleading are completely false. They have absolutely no basis in fact.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. I like to give people the benefit of doubt when I don't have all the data.

Even when I'm 99.999999% sure they're full of shit. Scientific rigor, you know.

[closeupready]

158. But if he says it's misleading, it must be misleading.

There are no alternatives to this fact. :sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

124. Also, why is the article linked in the OP completely wrong including direct quotes? nm

[kristopher]

107. Text for fig. 3

Fig. 3. Body weight gain in female rats during 7 months as percent of initial weight in rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow, 24-h access to HFCS and chow, 12-h sucrose and chow, or ad libitum chow. Females with 24-h access to HFCS gained significantly more weight over the duration of the experiment than animals with sucrose access or chow access, data reached significance at week 19. *p < 0.05. Values are means ± SEM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Right, but they only gave 12h access to the sucrose study.

look at the 12h access HFCS vs. 12h access sucrose.

No significant difference.

Apology accepted.

[kristopher]

127. You are making false claims.

There is no reason to refute anything further you say - you've proven that you have zero regard for the facts and are intent on deception.

[woo me with science]

221. Please link to data in the article to show that

1. 12-hour access to HFCS was compared to 12-hour access to sucrose, and the animals in the HFCS group gained more weight

OR

2. 24-hour access to HFCS was compared to 24-hour access to sucrose, and the animals in the HFCS group gained more weight.

Or are you actually claiming that you can draw the conclusions you state without the basic control of equivalent access conditions?

[muriel_volestrangler]

244. Here's the abstract - it's your option 1

In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0N-4YGHGM1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F26%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8aaf4b3489ff395ee128700d9fd4710c

If you have access to the full article through a subscription, you can get to it from that page.

[CTyankee]

41. har de har har

"I suppose you might fit in this group..."

Got a good mental image right there...oh, boy, not pretty...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. I'll also refer you to table 1 and figure 3.

Did you make it past the abstract?

[kristopher]

109. Text for figure 3

Fig. 3. Body weight gain in female rats during 7 months as percent of initial weight in rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow, 24-h access to HFCS and chow, 12-h sucrose and chow, or ad libitum chow. Females with 24-h access to HFCS gained significantly more weight over the duration of the experiment than animals with sucrose access or chow access, data reached significance at week 19. *p < 0.05. Values are means ± SEM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. See post #121 for your error.

[kristopher]

130. You are making false claims.

There is no reason to refute anything further you say - you've proven that you have zero regard for the facts and are intent on deception.

[thereismore]

182. A p-value less than 0.05 is normally called statistically significant. The CornSyrup guy is a fraud.

And a persistent one. He belongs somewhere else, but I guess he is doing what he is paid for.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

183. Yes, a p-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant.

But a p-value between what and what?

[thereismore]

199. It's between a control group and a "treatment" group. In this case,

p < 0.05 means that there is less than 5% chance that females with 24-h access to HFCS water are no different than females with 24-h access to sucrose water.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

202. A 24h access to sucrose you say?

Care to double check that?

[Johonny]

217. That's the whole tipping point of the article

I don't understand their study. They claim a statistical difference but look what happens in the 24 hr study. The difference goes away? It's odd because in the long term male study the 12 hr and 24 hr show what they claim is a statistically significant difference. It's very odd to me. The trend between the women and men long term study while different in magnitude are similar. The abstract references the data on table one so I don't think it's misleading. I just don't think obvious what is going on. Particularly since they say "Further, no difference was found in HFCS intake and total overall caloric intake in the groups given 12-h access versus 24-h access. Both groups consumed the same amount of HFCS on average (21.3 ± 2.0 kcal HFCS in 12-h versus 20.1 ± 1.6 kcal HFCS in 24 h), even though only the 12-h group showed a significant difference in body weight when compared with the control groups." If that's true why did the 12 Hr show such a pronounce difference over the 24 Hr which basically showed no difference to the sucrose or the chow?

It's also not clear why the 12-h sucrose + ad libitum chow was dropped from the long term male study where one assumes the longer time would have lead to a more clear result. It's a real shame they did since the female long term study (which showed less total weight gain and thus had less chance to see a difference in sucrose and HFCS) showed no difference between the two. There's some discussion about eating cycles but it's not clear the short term and long term results (that contradict for the males) really backs them up.

Reading the whole article I'm left with more questions and I assume leaves the researches with more work ahead of them. I imagine the reviewer did mention these things and if I had to guess the researchers responded that that work was ongoing and thus the editor allowed this thing released.

[caraher]

49. I'm not sure who's right downthread...

but it is a good excuse to post this:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. For what it's worth, I'm reposting the link since it got deleted. It's a for-pay article.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0N-4YGHGM1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F26%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8aaf4b3489ff395ee128700d9fd4710c

[rhett o rick]

114. Oh, so you are not talking about the article linked in the OP but another article.

Did you provide a link to the article you are talking about. The one that says the opposite of the one in the OP?

You are saying that the quotes in the "News at Princeton" article are false? or fake? That's pretty serious.

Or possibly could you be reading a different article altogether?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. I'm talking about the original research article the princeton article is discussing.

There's a reference in the Princeton article, and the direct link is further downthread.

"You are saying that the quotes in the "News at Princeton" article are false? or fake?"

I'm saying the claims in the Princeton article are not supported by the data in the research article it's discussing. Probably due to sloppy journalism.

"That's pretty serious."

Not really, it's really rather common.

[rhett o rick]

134. The "News at Princeton" article has direct quotes from the research that you

refute. Are you claiming those quotes are not really in the report? I dont have access to the research report.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

137. Those quotes are apparently from an interview with the author of the research paper.

The quotes aren't in the report, no, they're new quotes.

There is a similar claim in the abstract of the paper that HFCS is more fattening than sucrose. However, the data presented in the paper does not support this claim. And the authors abandon this claim in the conclusion of the paper.

[kristopher]

147. The article is consistent with the content of the paper. You are trying to decieve people.

Discussion

In Experiment 1 (short-term study, 8 weeks), male rats with access to HFCS drank less total volume and ingested fewer calories in the form of HFCS (mean = 18.0 kcal) than the animals with identical access to a sucrose solution (mean = 27.3 kcal), but the HFCS rats, never the less, became overweight. In these males, both 24-h and 12-h access to HFCS led to increased body weight. In Experiment 2 (long-term study, 6–7 months), HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats. This increase in body weight was accompanied by an increase in fat accrual and circulating levels of TG, shows that this increase in body weight is reflective of obesity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

151. Apparently you don't understand the words you're reading.

I know technical papers are complicated for lay persons. But c'mon.

"but the HFCS rats, never the less, became overweight."

Both the HFCS rats and the sucrose rats gained weight. There was a statistically significant difference between the HFCS rats and the chow rats. But not the HFCS rats and the sucrose rats.

"HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats."

In the 24 h access HFCS rats, yes. But not the 12h access HFCS rats. They did not run a 24h access sucrose control.

[kristopher]

161. This is what I mean that you are cherry picking the data to deceive.

The entire series of experiments and observations yield a DEFINITIVE conclusion. You are attempting to portray the researchers as liars by using data that isn't in context and relying on the fact that the entire paper is behind a firewall.

The researchers are consistent in the abstract and the body of the paper. Their findings are represented ACCURATELY in the news release from Princeton. Your assertions to the contrary are deliberately false and clearly follow from an intent to deceive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. It's not cherry picking the data.

I'm talking about the entire data in summary.

There is a definitive conclusion, but that conclusion is not that there's a difference between HFCS and corn syrup.

You're really just digging yourself into a hole, and calling me a liar won't get you out of it.

[rog]

33. Sucrose = Glucose + Fructose bound with an ether bond.

Way too much info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

Interesting that honey = glucose + fructose, but without the bond.

Also, see Sugar, The Bitter Truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

1.5 hour talk. The science content is high, but Dr. Lustig is really great in walking you through all of it.

Let me know what you think after watching.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. I'm familiar with the chemistry, thank you.

That's more properly called a glycosidic bond. You'll notice it forms an acetal. Two acetals in the case of sucrose.

[rog]

39. I asked you to take a look at Lustig's talk.

It's an hour and a half long, so I'll be happy to read more of what you have to say in at least 90 minutes.

Enjoy yourself ... you're in over your head.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. No.

If you've got something specific, then bring it up.

I'm not going to watch some 1.5h woo woo video.

[rog]

46. Thanks for confirming your level of curiosity and intelligence.

So happy I don't need to pay attention to you from here on out.

Have a real good life ... and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Edit to add Lustig's CV.

re: "... woo woo video."

That talk on youtube is part of the UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public series.

Robert H. Lustig is Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, in the Division of Endocrinology Director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF.

Complete CV here: http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm

I guess I WILL read your response to this, if you have one. Should be mildly entertaining.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Thanks for confirming yours.

Apparently you'll believe everything if somebody with a degree posts a video on youtube.

One hell of a standard you've got there.

[rog]

71. As predicted: MILDLY amusing.

But, sad to say, no substance, no science, no facts, no (know) nothing.

But ... since your responses have moved from the mildly amusing to the moderately annoying, I'm moving on.

Thanks for the grins. I've enjoyed this, up to this point.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Like I said, you're welcome to post any specific issues you have.

As far as science is concerned, it seems I've already got the leg up on you in this thread.

But I'm really not interested in woo woo spam.

[wolfgangmo]

168. ahem

PornSyrup says "but, but, but ... woo, woo, woo.... you're an idiot ... woo, woo, woo ... yah, I know what the research says but that not what it REALLY SAYS ... woo, woo, woo ... hey, I'm a scientist ... woo, woo, woo ... and that other guy isn't even though he is a tenured professor in this subject area ... woo, woo, woo ... because one of his videos got posted to youtube ... woo, woo, woo ... so I don't have to listen to it to know what it says ... woo, woo, woooooooooooooooooo."

[closeupready]

83. Wiser to listen to DU members with misspelled words as usernames

who have all the answers and none of the credentials.

[closeupready]

82. Ah, but wait! He's using big words. That's like lipstick on a pig.

:rofl:

[Johonny]

48. interesting

Looking at their graphs I have to agree. Have no idea how that article comes out of those results... Would like to read the whole thing, but can't at home.

[kristopher]

119. Not true. Text from figure cited by HFPS

Fig. 3. Body weight gain in female rats during 7 months as percent of initial weight in rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow, 24-h access to HFCS and chow, 12-h sucrose and chow, or ad libitum chow. Females with 24-h access to HFCS gained significantly more weight over the duration of the experiment than animals with sucrose access or chow access, data reached significance at week 19. *p < 0.05. Values are means ± SEM

[LooseWilly]

75. Looks like our reading comprehension skills are... selective. FAIL.

You say "The article finds a statistically significant difference in rats fed a HFCS diet compared to their regular chow diet."

But, the OP says "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."

I don't know what kind of pet stores you frequent... but a rat's "regular chow diet" does not include "table sugar".

I've tasted rat chow... and there's nothing "table sugar"y about it. Your disingenuous recasting of the statement of the OP is insulting, and a poor reflection on your cognitive skills.

Your entire response is essentially a load of spin and bullshit. Do, please, shut the hell up...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Shall we go over this again?

"I don't know what kind of pet stores you frequent... but a rat's "regular chow diet" does not include "table sugar"."

Right. They fed rats a diet high in HFCS. Then a control diet high in sucrose. And another control diet that's just chow.

So they found out that when they fed rats diets high in sugar, the rats got fat. No surprise there. Did they find a difference if that sugar was HFCS vs. sucrose? No.

[notadmblnd]

84. Your first statement is not what the article said

it did not compare HFCS to their regular chow, they compared it to regular sugar. Shame on you for being misleading with your statement.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. If you bother to read the article, you'll find out that I'm right.

But the problem with that is that it requires reading.

[kristopher]

125. They compared it to both; the HFCS was worse than sugar.

This is the text from figure 3, which HFPS claims disproves the authors assertions in the abstract:
Fig. 3. Body weight gain in female rats during 7 months as percent of initial weight in rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow, 24-h access to HFCS and chow, 12-h sucrose and chow, or ad libitum chow. Females with 24-h access to HFCS gained significantly more weight over the duration of the experiment than animals with sucrose access or chow access, data reached significance at week 19. *p < 0.05. Values are means ± SEM


Clearly it is consistent with the author's broader findings. Just as clearly HFPS is making false statements.

[rhett o rick]

106. Please give the quote from the article. I read that "all sweeteners are not equal.."

"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."

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests,"

[thereismore]

172. That's not how I read the news report. Go ahead, read it again. The whole thing. nt

[tonysam]

5. Another garbage study. n/t

[Doremus]

15. Please explain.

I read the full article and don't see the flaws you obviously do. I'm certainly no expert and would appreciate it if you would explain why this study is flawed. Thanks.

[JackintheGreen]

6. So it *isn't* Fatty McFat-fat unable to control intake?

Why, that would mean that obesity isn't fully in the control of fat people! How can we abhor them as lazy meat sacks if science keeps demonstrating otherwise?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. First, it is easy to observe that such is the case

Second, HFCS ruins the taste of nearly everything it touches. Disgusting, unhealthy, overused crap.

[Occulus]

69. I found on in the ingredients label of a loaf of BREAD recently.

I was like "WTH? My cop of Joy of Cooking says nothing about adding this shit to the dough! ANY dough! Period! Just a little- a little- sugar to feed the yeast!"

Needless to say, I didn't buy the bread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Psst, Occulus, that's because HFCS IS sugar.

If you read your Joy of Cooking a little more thoroughly, you may notice that you can substitute honey for table sugar. Honey is a kind of sugary syrup that's about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Which is pretty much the same as HFCS.

[rog]

74. I don't know why anyone takes this DU-er seriously.

HFCS "the same as honey (or sugar)?"

OK, prof., if you say so, but ...

I know ... it's those annoying educated researchers again.

Sorry ...

Richard Anderson, Ph.D

"While naturally occurring sugars, as well as the sucrose we spoon into our coffee, contain fructose bound to other sugars, high-fructose corn syrup contains a good deal of "free" or unbound fructose. And it may be this free fructose that interferes with the heart's use of key minerals, like magnesium, copper and chromium.

The most striking evidence comes from recent animal studies. When rats fed a low-copper, high fructose diet were compared with rats fed a low-copper diet high in complex carbohydrates, the difference in longevity was enormous. "Rats normally live for a good two years," explains Meira Fields, Ph.D., research chemist at the USDA in Beltsville, Maryland. "But the rats in my study fed a high-fructose, low copper diets are dying after 5 weeks." One of the few human studies of low-copper, high-fructose diets was abruptly stopped when 4 of the 24 subjects developed heart-related abnormalities, according to Fields. High fructose diets have also been implicated in the development of adult-onset diabetes. Fructose, especially when combined with other sugars, reduces stores of chromium, a mineral essential for maintaining balanced insulin levels, according to Richard Anderson, Ph.D., lead scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.

"And low chromium levels can cause everything from high cholesterol levels to hyperglycemia to the kind of impaired glucose tolerance that can lead to adult-onset diabetes."

I think I'll stick to sugar and honey, thanks.

.r.

[Hannah Bell]

77. I'm not finding the passage you quote at your link, or via google -- could you link it?

[rog]

78. Sure ... here you go.

That's from an article in Men's Health that is not available online any more, but they have it archived at the "Wayback Machine" (archive.org) ... http://www.menshealth.com/features/mensconf/docs/doc31.html">here.

I found it archived here, with a few other articles on HFCS, including some interesting propaganda from the Corn Refiner's Association (with a couple of comments added).

.rog.

[Hannah Bell]

79. the richard anderson you linked is a different richard anderson from the one quoted in the article.

this is the one quoted: works for usda. at beltsville, md.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=144

[rog]

80. The editing period has expired, so I can't correct it.

But thanks for the info. The "real" Doc Anderson has a fairly convincing CV, as well.

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again.

.rog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. That's OK, I don't know anybody who takes you seriously.

This thread amuses me.

So far we've got somebody into the electric universe, a vaccine woo, a GMO woo, and various functional illiterates who never even bothered to read the actual article.

The thing that cracks me up is that if people are really so passionate about HFCS, why don't they bother to learn anything about it.

"I think I'll stick to sugar and honey, thanks."

Case in point. As you already pointed out, honey is 55% free fructose, just like HFCS. So if this Anderson is correct, it's just as "bad" as HFCS. Good thing he's not.

[BrklynLiberal]

211. I, for one, have that poster on IGNORE. And it seems to have been the right decision.

[Scout]

223. me too! n/t

[jeff47]

116. Well, it's being used as you describe

The HFCS in that bread is being used to feed the yeast and promote a brown crust, just like sugar in home-made bread.

[amborin]

12. i love gummy bears but i've stopped due to the HFCS

but my triglycerides have always been really low....61 currently

still, the HFCS is bad stuff

[sense]

14. This can't be right.....that would mean

that it's not calories in, calories out like so many continue to claim! You mean our bodies are not just simple empty boxes? Heresy!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. Too bad this is just another junk study..... just like this one,

I hope you understand the sarcasm.... anyone who cannot see the links between sweeteners and the epidemic of metabolic illness in this country is being willfully ignorant of the facts.

Physiol Behav. 2010 Feb 6.
Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: Epidemiologic evidence.
Hu FB, Malik VS.

Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
In recent decades, temporal patterns in SSB intake have shown a close parallel between the upsurge in obesity and rising levels of SSB consumption. SSBs are beverages that contain added caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup or fruit-juice concentrates, all of which result in similar metabolic effects. They include the full spectrum of soft drinks, carbonated soft drinks, fruitades, fruit drinks, sports drinks, energy and vitamin water drinks, sweetened iced tea, cordial, squashes, and lemonade, which collectively are the largest contributor to added sugar intake in the US.

It has long been suspected that SSBs have an etiologic role in the obesity epidemic, however only recently have large epidemiological studies been able to quantify the relationship between SSB consumption and long-term weight gain, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Experimental studies have provided important insight into potential underlying biological mechanisms.

It is thought that SSBs contribute to weight gain in part by incomplete compensation for energy at subsequent meals following intake of liquid calories. They may also increase risk of T2DM and CVD as a contributor to a high dietary glycemic load leading to inflammation, insulin resistance and impaired beta-cell function.

Additional metabolic effects from the fructose fraction of these beverages may also promote accumulation of visceral adiposity, and increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis, and hypertension due to hyperuricemia. Consumption of SSBs should therefore be replaced by healthy alternatives such as water, to reduce risk of obesity and chronic diseases. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 20138901

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. And this one....

Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Feb;21(1):51-7.
Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose.
Bray GA.

Pennington Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808, USA. [email protected]
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to suggest that fructose, a component of both sucrose (common sugar) and high fructose corn syrup, should be of concern to both healthcare providers and the public.

RECENT FINDINGS: Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has increased steadily over the past century and with this increase has come more and more reports associating their use with the risk of overweight, diabetes and cardiometabolic disease. In a meta-analysis of the relationship between soft drink consumption and cardiometabolic risk, there was a 24% overall increased risk comparing the top and bottom quantiles of consumption.

Several factors might account for this increased risk, including increased carbohydrate load and increased amounts of dietary fructose. Fructose acutely increases thermogenesis, triglycerides and lipogenesis as well as blood pressure, but has a smaller effect on leptin and insulin release than comparable amounts of glucose.

In controlled feeding studies, changes in body weight, fat storage and triglycerides are observed as well as an increase in inflammatory markers. SUMMARY: The present review concludes on the basis of the data assembled here that in the amounts currently consumed, fructose is hazardous to the cardiometabolic health of many children, adolescents and adults.

PMID: 19956074

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Are you sure it's not caused by the electric sun?

:rofl:

That study is another case wherein HFCS was not compared to sucrose.

"anyone who cannot see the links between sweeteners and the epidemic of metabolic illness in this country is being willfully ignorant of the facts."

If there is such an obvious connection, why is it not supported by scientific evidence?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. I am not responsible for your reading comprehension or the

lack thereof.

Immunological detection of fructose-derived advanced glycation end-products.
Takeuchi M, Iwaki M, Takino JI, Shirai H, Kawakami M, Bucala R, Yamagishi SI.

Department of Pathophysiological Science, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hokuriku University, Kanazawa, Japan.
The advanced stage of non-enzymatic glycation (also called the Maillard reaction) that leads to the formation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) has an important function in the pathogenesis of angiopathy in diabetic patients. So far, most studies have been focused on the Maillard reaction by glucose. Although an elevated level of glucose had been thought to have a primary function in the Maillard reaction, on a molecular basis, glucose is among the least reactive sugars within biological systems. In addition to the extracellular formation of AGEs, rapid intracellular AGEs formation by various intracellular precursors (fructose, trioses, and dicarbonyl compounds) has recently attached attention.

In this study, we considered the Maillard reaction with particular attention to the potential function of fructose. Fructose AGE-modified serum albumins were prepared by incubation of rabbit or bovine serum albumin (RSA or BSA) with D-fructose. After immunization of rabbits, fructose-derived AGEs (Fru-AGE) antiserum was subjected to affinity chromatography on a Sepharose 4B column coupled with Fru-AGE-BSA. Characterization of the novel anti-Fru-AGE antibody was performed with a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunoblot analysis. The assay of Fru-AGE was established using the immunoaffinity-purified-specific antibody, and the presence of Fru-AGE in healthy and diabetic serum was shown (7.04+/-4.47 vs 29.13+/-18.08 U/ml). We also investigated whether high glucose treatment could stimulate intracellular Fru-AGE production in cultured pericytes, and we analyzed the amount of Fru-AGE contained in some common commercial beverages and condiments.

It is possible that Fru-AGE formation by these endogenous and exogenous routes contributes importantly to the tissue pathology of diabetes and aging. This paper provides novel and clinically relevant information on the detection of Fru-AGE between fructose and proteins.Laboratory Investigation advance online publication, 8 March 2010; doi:10.1038/labinvest.2010.62.

PMID: 20212455

On edit to add:

Fructated apolipoprotein A-I showed severe structural modification and loss of beneficial functions in lipid-free and lipid-bound state with acceleration of atherosclerosis and senescence.
Park KH, Jang W, Kim KY, Kim JR, Cho KH.

Aging-associated Vascular Disease Research Center, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 712-749, Republic of Korea.
Non-enzymatic glycation of serum apolipoproteins is a main feature of diabetes mellitus under hyperglycemia. Advanced glycation end products are implicated in the development of aging and metabolic syndrome, including premature atherosclerosis in diabetic subjects. ApoA-I is the principal protein constituent of HDL. In this study, glycated human apoA-I (gA-I) by fructation was characterized on functional and structural correlations in lipid-free and lipid-bound states.

The gA-I showed more spontaneous multimeric band formation up to pentamer and exhibited slower elution profile with more degraded fragments from fast protein liquid chromatography. The gA-I showed modified secondary structure from fluorescence and circular dichroism analysis. Reconstituted high-density lipoprotein (rHDL) containing the gA-I had less content of phospholipid with a much smaller particle size than those of rHDL-containing nA-I (nA-I-rHDL). The rHDL containing gA-I (gA-I-rHDL) consisted of less molecular number of apoA-I than nA-I-rHDL with decreased alpha-helical content. Treatment of the gA-I-rHDL induced more atherogenic process in macrophage cell and premature senescence in human dermal fibroblast cell.

Conclusively, fructose-mediated apoA-I glycation resulted in severe loss of several beneficial functions of apoA-I and HDL regarding anti-senescence and anti-atherosclerosis activities due to a lack of anti-oxidant activity with increased susceptibility of protein degradation and structural modification.

[Chemisse]

28. Some people find the actual scientific studies too hard to understand

So they just call it junk science, lol.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

30. Well, an awful lot of people with spaghetti after their names are

doing a whole lot of looking at this stuff for nothing. I guess they are bored with things regular... and have taken up doing medical studies on stuff that doesn't need looked at. Strange that.

[closeupready]

85. LOL - it's like that old joke about the tree falling in a forest

If nobody is around when it happened, it didn't happen. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. :rofl:

Seriously, you just gotta love how Mr. "WooWoo" dismisses anti-woowoo information (otherwise known as medical research) as "woowoo" (a word, by the way, I've never seen used anywhere but on Democratic Underground - must be too scientific for my stupidness, lol), but only goes as far as "I'm the Pope - if I say it's not valid, it's not valid - and since I'm the Pope, I don't have to explain, I do not have to communicate in everyday vocabulary; what I say goes."

[kenfrequed]

160. What I find ironic

Is the number of junk science enthusiasts that have, over the years, denied cigarettes and asbestos causing lung cancer as well as denying humans affecting climate.

It is crazy that the Real junk science people are able to accuse actual science of being junk.

Ah the glory of Public Relations.

[SPedigrees]

22. We cut HFCS and crystalized fructose from our diets and lost approx 20 lbs each in 6 mos.

No other changes, no more or less exercise, no less sweetened foods, we just substituted sugar for HFCS in desserts and drinks. It takes a lot of label-reading and cooking from scratch, but it's worth it. I fit into skinny jeans now that I was saving in case I got a wasting disease.

HFCS is nasty stuff, and, like others posted, it tastes bad. Research keeps uncovering more health dangers from HFCS all the time. There are problems with corn oil too. We've substituted olive oil.

[Hansel]

23. I don't know what the science is but I do know that if I eat food with

high-fructose corn syrup in it, I eat more of it than if I eat a product with sugar in it.

I quit eating anything with high-fructose corn syrup about 6 weeks ago and am limiting myself to very few processed foods of any kind. I am not avoiding sugar, but I notice I have a lot less of a craving for it. The result, I've lost 16 pounds without much of a struggle, I have far more energy, and I'm starting to understand what "feeling full" means.

I think high-fructose corn syrup stimulates your appetite and keeps you from ever feeling satisfied and I think that is exactly the purpose of it.

[rog]

37. Really interesting to read your post.

In the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" ... see my post #33 above ... Dr. Lustig address this point in detail, re: HFCS stimulating your appetite.

I just came across this talk yesterday and found it fascinating. Thanks for sharing your experience.

.rog.

[SPedigrees]

58. It is speculated that eating HFCS when craving sugar due to

lowered blood sugar does not satisfy the appetite because fructose lacks the insulin stimulating effect of sucrose. It makes sense, I guess.

Congrats on the weight loss in such a short time.

[SpiralHawk]

25. "D'oh" - Twinkie Dinkies (R)

[The Straight Story]

51. How can this be? Scientists are never wrong, they have peer review and such

It is a fact you must 'believe' until someone else tells you it is not a fact.

Science is only wrong tomorrow, today it is right.

[merh]

54. And it damages the liver the same way excess alcohol does

Duke study links high fructose corn syrup with liver damage

[glitch]

57. Thanks for the link.

I feel so sorry for kids fed a constant diet of this stuff. It's in so many factory-made food-like substances.

[merh]

66. It is in just about everything.

The truth about the danger of smoking finally came out and the health concerns did trump the tobacco growers profits.

Hopefully the same can be said about the corn farmers and this poison.

[glitch]

94. I hope so. But even ad-savvy kids buy into those snotty (and evil) hfcs commercials.

they respond in the same addictive way that I used to to justify cigarettes.
:scared:

[shanti]

139. thank you!

just diagnosed with diabetes in january and have already lost over 20 pounds with a change in diet (NO HFCS - or sugar for that matter). i am a diligent lable reader too now! it is definitely a poison that has caused our obesity and metabolic disorder epidemic.

[merh]

230. I'm having an easier time kicking smoking than I am

the HCF habit.

Everything has the poison and there is no patch I can wear to ease the cravings.

[BlueIris]

55. Wow, no way! In other news, the sky is blue.

Yeah, sorry I don't have any links on that right now...oh, wait...

[Scout]

56. uh oh, now you've done it! n/t

[Liquorice]

59. I've found the wonders of xylitol. It tastes like sugar, it's natural and it's good for your teeth.

It also doesn't raise blood sugar like sugar, has less calories than sugar and makes you feel satiated. I love it, and can't believe I didn't know about it until recently.

[Sugarcoated]

64. So have I

It tastes the least artificial, probably because it isn't artificial.

My son can't swallow pills, so he crushes them and puts them in oatmeal every morning, but it has to be sweet, so instead of the junky sugar filled, he uses a teaspoon of xylitol and a bit of cinnamon. I've also got him to trade soda and gatorade (most of the time) for a stevia flavored soda called Zevia. He's lost ten lbs, I've lost about 6 lbs.

And, I want to add, when I keep my sugar grams (it's in a lot of foods in small amounts so it's hard to avoid completely), I don't get the constant urge to snack.

[hedgehog]

92. Try switching to steel cut oats - for some reason they're tasty enough

not to need sugar.

[shanti]

141. stevia works for me

and it's ALL NATURAL!

[JerseygirlCT]

195. I had found that nutra-sweet bothers my

gut - and I've got Crohns and don't want to go there! So I stay away.

It's made me nervous about even trying Splenda.

But I'm tempted with stevia, as I read it's really not another made in a test tube concoction, but plant-based.

Guess one of these days I'm just going to have to risk it.

[KittyWampus]

213. If you get Stevia, buy the kind that has Inulin in it. It helps with taste.

[Sugarcoated]

234. Xylitol is plant based also.

[JerseygirlCT]

240. Good to know, thanks. nt

[Odin2005]

60. K&R!

LOL at the pic! :)

[L0oniX]

61. It's one of the main food groups along with salt, fat, sugar, MSG and red dye number 4...

...and when in doubt add cheese and bacon.
:9

[CoffeeCat]

62. So, is this reversible?

If you gain weight this way--can you diet and exercise away the effects of long-term
HFCS use? Or is the body changed in some way(s) that makes it more difficult
to lose weight? Is your body forever changed?

I understand that diet/exercise will always lead to weight loss, but since HFCS causes
more weight gain than sugar, I'm wondering if permanent damage is done--causing the body
to want to store/hold onto weight more.

I am dieting now. I went through a challenging time and I used food to deal. I ate
a lot of sweets and I was astounded at how fast the weight came on and how it changed me.
I looked like hell. I have noticed that since I gave up HFCS the weight is falling off.

However, I wonder---what long-term damage have I done to myself? Will I be able to
lose all of the weight or not? Does HFCS cause other damage as well---to metabolism
or to internal organs?

I'm just thinking out loud here. It's scary to have abused foods with HFCS, and to wonder
exactly what you've done to yourself. I'm on the upswing and getting healthy--but
it appears that this stuff may be bad for us, on so many levels.

[Mari333]

90. knr on just your post it is mind boggling

wondering whether there is any long term damage to the metabolic system.
my republican brother just became a vegan because he was 44 and had quadruple bypass. he saw I was healthy and couldnt understand why I didnt have heart disease at 58. he just lost 15 lbs in a month cutting out meat and dairy and also HFCS.

he is amazed. (our family genetics turn lentils into cholesterol)

I am glad to hear you have stopped eating hfcs. as other people have pointed out, it might even have an addictive quality to it.

corn subsidies for monsanto?? who knows.

[SPedigrees]

97. No permanent damage that I'm aware of.

We just stopped buying any foods with HFCS and the weight came off. We didn't diet, still eat plenty of desserts sweetened with sugar, but this requires reading labels carefully and lots of cooking from scratch. We're lucky to be able to buy organic mayonaise, ketchup, jam/jellies, and breads that do NOT contain the stuff.

We also get the same amount of exercise as before. No more, no less.

I wouldn't worry about it, coffeecat. They sneaked this stuff into our food supply and it took us all by surprise. If you just stop eating it, your physiology (and weight) should return to normal. Ours did, along with many others I've heard from. I've also read a reverse account by someone from a South American country where everything is sweetened with sugar, who inexplicably began to put on pounds after moving to the USA and consuming our HFCS laden food and drink.

Another thing to watch for now is added fructose, aka crystallized fructose.

[shanti]

142. it may be too late for some of us

i am now diabetic, and so is sis. it doesn't run in our family. :( almost everything i eat now is made from scratch. fast food never touches my lips.

[SPedigrees]

193. I am sorry to hear that, shanti.

It is very troubling, seeing as the disease does not run in your family.

[Initech]

63. HFCS should be on the list of banned substances.

[Lorien]

65. NASTY stuff! Makes my hypoglycemia go nuts like nothing else ever does

I've managed to avoid it for years, but it means a lot of time cooking and baking at home.

[ananda]

87. I avoid this stuff like the plague.

All corn actually.

[hunter]

88. HFCS keeps U.S. citizens fat & happy.

We don't want angry peasants going on strike, burning cars, and blocking highways like they do in France, do we?

Here, here, calm down, have a soda, and turn on the television. Everything is okay.

[glitch]

95. "It's a COOK BOOK!!"

You might have to be a certain age to get that one.

[Locrian]

98. "To Serve Man" ? ! - n/t

[glitch]

226. Old-timer ;) nt

[defendandprotect]

104. Didn't they also find mercury in this stuff . . ???

[jeff47]

111. Haven't read the papers, but this story shows examples of both good science and bad science

Assuming the papers actually say what the news story says:

Good Science:
"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."

Appears to be a well-designed experiment with results that follow from the experiment.

Bad Science:
"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. In humans, this would be equivalent to a 200-pound man gaining 96 pounds."

Is bad science. They're trying to use their results to make a statement about HFCS without an adequate control. They needed a 3rd group fed a different sugar to show that their results are specific to HFCS, not sugar in general.

[closeupready]

185. Do you REALLY think they had no control group?

I mean, I don't dispute the accuracy of what you've posted, but I'd want to see the study before concluding they actually had no control group, since the need for a control group is just about the most basic principle of research. They aren't likely to have messed that up.

[closeupready]

186. Turns out, it's not bad science. Post #178 shows there was indeed a control group.

n/t

[jeff47]

201. You misread the abstract

The abstract quoted in 178 states exactly what I said. Their first experiment controlled for HFCS vs. sucrose. Their second experiment lacked sufficient controls _IF_ their goal was to state that HFCS was worse long-term than sucrose.

However, their experiment is properly designed if their goal was to say long-term high-sugar diets were bad, independent of the sugar source.

Not having sufficient controls to justify every statement in the analysis section of the paper is actually quite common. It is normal to include some speculations that aren't actually proven by their experiment. After all, the paper is a very good place to advertise for grant money for follow-on experiments. But in the paper they will make it clear that they are speculating and future experiments would be necessary to prove it.

When the paper gets translated into science journalism, the speculation qualifiers are usually removed.

[closeupready]

209. Oh, okay, I see what you're saying.

Cheers. :hi:

[LanternWaste]

113. Sacred cows....

Sacred cow to be served for dinner this evening... with all natural sweeteners. :P

[louis-t]

118. I will say this agan and again.

Less corn syrup in food! Nobody would even notice 10% less. Stop forcing huge boxes of popcorn on everyone (most of which ends up on the floor). Make fuel. I love the commercial by the corn growers where the guy says "yeah, well you know what they say about corn syrup" and the other person says, cynically "WHAT". Then the other guy says "well, uh..uh..." They make a statement at the end saying something about "moderation". That would mean cutting out any juice drinks, candy, soda, most bread, any fast food, most cereal...then you could say your HFCS intake is "moderate".

[dustbunnie]

138. And? Bread and decent cereals have barely any sweetener in them and the rest is pure shit.

We live in a fat cult culture. People want those big, disgusting bags of popcorn and oversized chocolate bars. They want to drink 12 cans of coke a day. TGIF tried a culture marketing scheme where they offered smaller portions and it flopped big time because people NEED their massive, platter-sized meals for $10.99 to feel like they're getting a bargain.

As per the results of the study: Quit drinking shitty sweet beverages. So far they have nothing to say about food.

"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said.

Also, they've only got results on a short-term study. We have absolutely no idea if in the long term, the sugar-fed rats would've caught up to become as obese as the HFCS rats. I'm going to go ahead and bet the bank as that being a big, resounding YES!

I'd also like to see some test performed on actual humans, rather than rats. No offense to rodentia of course.

[JoeyT]

122. Tons of sugar makes you gain weight

isn't exactly a revolutionary statement.
It's the *amount* of sugars we consume that we may not realize we're getting that much, not the kind of sugar.
Using the Mello Yellow bottle in front of me to figure it up, there's just under 3 cups of syrup in a 12 pack of cans, and it works out to 2160 calories. (Yes, a lot of people drink this stuff by the 12 pack.) Doesn't matter if it's cane sugar, beet sugar, honey, or HFCSs, eating that much of it isn't good for you.


Edited to add: Having read the original paper, http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/03/23/rats_and_highfructose_corn_syrup.php">this guy has a much better grasp of the study and the implications of the data.

It is kinda funny to see some of the same people yelling "Yay science!" when they think an article damns HCFCs or GMOs, then turn around and scream about how all scientists are lying shills when they're given links to studies that discredit alternative medicine or show vaccine safety.

[Lex]

132. Plus sugar ingestion makes you more hungry.

Or I know it does for me. If I cut out sugar and processed carbs (sugar) I can tell I'm less hungry.

Eating empty sugar calories is bad enough but I think it leads to over-consumption of food in general.

[dustbunnie]

146. Couldn't agree more with everything you've said here.

And as stated in the article you've posted, it's pretty useless to try to come to any conclusion without long term studies and perhaps a couple using, oh say, PEOPLE instead of rats.

People just don't want to face the facts that they consume way to much, and way to much crap garbage at that. It's much easier to find a scape goat and continue to eat as though there were no tomorrow. :)

[pitohui]

148. tee hee stick w. our good louisiana sugar cane and quit w. that midwestern corn already

once again louisiana just does it better :-)

[swilton]

152. The problem is compounded

by the fact that our meat is fattened by corn/corn products - many restaurants proudly proclaim that their beef is corn fed/raised:puke:

[DesertFlower]

153. i hadn't had coke in years. a few months ago i

had some. it tasted like turpentine.

[laughingliberal]

162. I had a similar experience

My husband and I really don't drink sodas. Recently we were visiting with friends and they offered us a Coke. We thought, why not? It didn't taste like turpentine but it tasted like syrup. A sickening amount of sweetness to it.

[DailyGrind51]

154. The back story behind the film "The Informant" was the manipulation of the chemistry

of corn syrup by ADM so that the human body would metabolize it like fat rather than sugar. They did not plan for the way it was metabolized, it was just cheaper for them to do it this way so that they could adapt it for more products.

[Bryn]

163. People, do this experiment by cutting out HFCS for one whole month

I did a year ago, lost 8 lbs in one month by just cutting out HFCS. Without dieting. Used real sugar instead like Mexican coke. So I know what HFCS does to me. It's in EVERYTHING now even bagels that it's a pain to read labels when shopping!

Recently someone posted that research found that HFCS causes liver damage as if one drinks too much alcoholic beverages.

"FRIDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- New research links consumption of high-fructose corn syrup, the extremely popular sweetener that shows up in food products from ketchup to jelly, to liver damage in people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease."

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100256046

[dustbunnie]

184. Crappy fat-laden, sugary foods and lack of exercise cause fatty liver disease

"Directly linked to poor nutrition and lack of exercise, fatty liver disease is increasingly showing up in young people as childhood obesity levels rise."

http://thehealthline.ca/displayArticle.aspx?id=771

So if you think that getting rid of HFCS suddenly makes it okay to lie on the couch and hork down mass quantities of chicken wings, greasy hot dogs, fries and whatever else people love to binge on, sorry to say, you're still at risk.

[SPedigrees]

214. We stopped eating HFCS and made no other changes. The difference here is

we didn't binge on fast food or sit on the couch before OR after the introduction of HFCS into our food supply before OR after we purged HFCS from our diets. The ONLY factor accountable for our weight gain from 1985 to 2009 was HFCS, and the ONLY factor responsible for losing that weight was the elimination of HFCS from our diets.

In fact, if anything, during the years we put on the weight, we likely got MORE exercise, being younger then.

[dustbunnie]

224. Sorry, but what does that have to do with fatty liver disease, which is what I responded to?

You can also go on and on about how HFCS is the one and only reason why you and everyone else were/are overweight, yet I get to see over 100 morbidly obese people every year. Each one claims that they eat very little, and on top of it eat healthy meals as well. Never fails upon closer examination of the diet that each one consumes vastly more than they think. Mostly close or over the 3000 range per day and a lot of it pure crap. I'll stick to my own anecdotal evidence and that of experts, thanks. If you really think banning HFCS is going to somehow make people thin without HUGE other lifestyle changes, then you are sadly mistaken. Mexico's population doesn't consume HFCS and they're even fatter than we are. It's a nice daydream and excuse for people who are extremely overweight but doesn't help them one bit.

PS. The authors of this study realize that they still have plenty of work to do to come to any real conclusion.. and the only one they're offering right now is that it's bad to consume mass quantities of sweetened drinks. NO SHIT! If you'd like to mail me $20 I can give you dozens of equally brilliant advice as well.

[SPedigrees]

238. So basically you're calling me a liar, and denying the researchers'

findings based on the 1st experiment comparing rats fed HFCS vs rats fed sucrose. I guess the HFCS rats exercised less and made poor diet choices while the sugar rats made better lifestyle choices... oh wait, the rats in both groups had no choice since both were fed the same rat chow.

Interesting too that you claim in your subject line that the discussion was about fatty liver disease only, yet go on to offer up message text about obesity.

You quote the corn industry's party line so well. I'm sorely tempted to try out the "ignore" option.

[dustbunnie]

242. Nope. I agree with the researchers' conclusions although there are probs with the study.

Their conclusion is that people should not consume mass quantities of HFCS soda and drinks. I concur and think it's disgusting the way people guzzle the stuff down by the truckload. I did not anywhere in their study read that sugar is somehow the "good guy" and that people should feel free to OD on the stuff because it's so much better than HFCS.

That's what people on this thread are proclaiming, and if that's what you were trying to get across in your post, then no, I won't say you're lying, but I will say you are dead wrong and why don't you start down that road without me. Eating sugar in mass quantities is addictive, will make you fat, and subject you to potentially life-threatening illnesses. The researchers have no long term study on HFCS with proper controls, nor do they have a human experiment. On the other hand, there are plenty of studies available that show without a doubt that sugar is bad for you.

Far as I'm concerned, HFCS is only the tip of the iceberg in explaining why Americans are so fat. There are a multitude of interconnected reasons, most of which include marketing and profit. Portion size, the proliferation of fast food joints, the inundation of advertising telling people to "eat, eat, EAT all this wonderful shit that tastes good and costs so little," the over production of processed foods, etc... are all to blame. If it were only HFCS to blame, then other countries wouldn't be faced with an obesity prob, and they are. New York has started an ad campaign to inform people just what and how many calories they are consuming when they eat certain foods and it's an excellent start IMO.

As for the ignore thing, you should use it. I didn't at first, thinking it was silly, but there are so many users and some are just too much. Ignoring them makes for a much more pleasant experience. I see one of mine has responded to me below, and it's quite satisfying to know I didn't waste a second reading anything that person wrote. I just find the huffy, dramatic announcements of people about to ignore someone kind of childish. There's no reason to even waste time telling them... just do it.

[Bryn]

218. I am vegetarian. Thank you very much.

[dustbunnie]

222. That doesn't make any difference nor does anyone care. You're grossly misinforming people.

Fatty liver disease is caused by bad diet and no exercise in general, not HFCS in particular. Europeans and Mexicans also get the disease.

THAT'S the point.

[Bryn]

227. Spare me your insults

I may have posted about HFCS being linked to fatty liver, but my post was actually about the difference between sugar and HFCS for me. If you love HFCS so much, good for you.

[dustbunnie]

228. Yes, you posted about fatty liver disease and that's what I responded to.

End of story.

[libodem]

176. Told ya so

[thereismore]

178. Full abstract here:

Abstract
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Ain't that special

Now wait for it... the exercise will make you thin crowd and stop eating your face crowd will soon show up...

[dustbunnie]

187. We're already here. And guess what. Exercise and watching what we eat works.

Whether food contains sugar or HFCS doesn't really matter because we avoid it all. Strange thing is, we're not obese, we feel great, and enjoy all the things life has to offer. But you keep waiting for HFCS to be taken off the market, and you know, maybe the pounds will just melt off you, regardless of what you eat. Lulz.

[Scout]

225. if you feel so great and enjoy life so much, why are you always such rude motherfuckers?

yes moderators, i'm sure you will be asked to delete my post, and i'm sorry to have taken up your time. thanks for the job you do for us

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

229. Ah that was ignored

thanks though.

As I said, the science is anathema since it threatens our believe system crowd has shown.

Sadly (or a good thing) they mostly are now in the ignored department.

I feel better now that I don't have to do this...

:banghead:

Every turn.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

233. Yeah, we're the ones who get angry at the internet whenever an obesity thread shows up.

:rofl:

[Scout]

237. who is "angry at the internet" ... no one, so your post makes no sense. n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

241. At people on the internet.

Hence your constant defensiveness whenever an obesity thread pops up.

[Dora]

190. Eliminate it.

Our household has done it. It's easier for those of us in urban areas who have access to well-stocked grocery stores and health food stores. However, my SIL in rural Iowa was diagnosed with a HFCS allergy a few years ago, and she's been able to eliminate it from their pantry, illustrating that when there's a will, there's a way.

[fatbuckel]

192. high-fructose corn syrup

We`re treated like voting cattle.........Been saying this for fifteen years now...

[thereismore]

197. From the article: Differences between HFCS and sucrose

HFCS-55, which is commonly used in processed food and drinks, is 55% fructose, 42% glucose and 3% higher saccharides ( and ). Given that sucrose is a disaccharide, which is metabolized to one fructose and one glucose molecule (Caspary, 1992), it has been argued that there is little difference between fructose and sucrose, since both provide about 50% fructose and 50% glucose in the blood stream; and until recently, there was no evidence that HFCS contributes to long-term weight gain beyond what sucrose contributes (Forshee et al., 2007). However, the present study suggests that HFCS and sucrose can have different effects on body weight and obesigenic measures.

HFCS is different than sucrose in many ways. First, HFCS-55 has proportionately slightly more fructose than sucrose (White, 2008). Second, fructose is absorbed further down the intestine than glucose, with much of the metabolism occurring in the liver, where it is converted to fructose-1-phsophate, a precursor to the backbone of the triglyceride molecule (Havel, 2005). Third, fructose is metabolically broken down before it reaches the rate-limiting enzyme (phosphofructokinase), thereby supplying the body with an unregulated source of three-carbon molecules. These molecules are transformed into glycerol and fatty acids, which are eventually taken up by adipose tissue, leading to additional adiposity (Hallfrisch, 1990). And fourth, HFCS causes aberrant insulin functioning, in that it bypasses the insulin-driven satiety system (Curry, 1989). Whereas circulating glucose increases insulin release from the pancreas (Vilsboll et al., 2003), fructose does this less efficiently, because cells in the pancreas lack the fructose transporter ( and ). Typically, insulin released by dietary sucrose inhibits eating and increases leptin release (Saad et al., 1998 M.F. Saad, A. Khan, A. Sharma, R. Michael, M.G. Riad-Gabriel and R. Boyadjian et al., Physiological insulinemia acutely modulates plasma leptin, Diabetes 47 (1998), pp. 544–549. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (205)Saad et al., 1998), which in turn further inhibits food intake. As previously discussed, meals of HFCS have been shown to reduce circulating insulin and leptin levels (Teff et al., 2004). Thus, fructose intake might not result in the degree of satiety that would normally ensue with a meal of glucose or sucrose, and this could contribute to increased body weight.

[rog]

198. Thank you for this post.

This is exactly what Dr. Lustig explains in Sugar: The Bitter Truth, posted above.

This is fascinating science.

.rog.

[thereismore]

203. You are welcome. A certain someone on this board really moved my liver. nt

[mike_c]

219. thanks-- some thoughts....

"...there is little difference between fructose and sucrose, since both provide about 50% fructose and 50% glucose in the blood stream; and until recently, there was no evidence that HFCS contributes to long-term weight gain beyond what sucrose contributes (Forshee et al., 2007)."

Yep, that is exactly the problem. Fructose is fructose once it is absorbed at the microvillar plasmalemma. There literally is NO difference between fructose in sucrose and fructose in HFCS. The proportions are pretty close, well within variation in absorption.

"...HFCS-55 has proportionately slightly more fructose than sucrose (White, 2008)

The operative word here is "slight," I think. It's hard to believe that the small difference is responsible for significant metabolic differences, especially since not every molecule of fructose and glucose from sucrose are necessarily absorbed, so the 50-50 ratio of glucose and fructose in sucrose does not necessarily reflect precise absorption ratios (although it's probably pretty close). IF that slight difference is responsible for their different affects on obesity, then a simple fix would be to add MORE glucose.

"...fructose is absorbed further down the intestine than glucose, with much of the metabolism occurring in the liver, where it is converted to fructose-1-phsophate, a precursor to the backbone of the triglyceride molecule (Havel, 2005).

But that is true of fructose from sucrose, too, which apparently does not cause additional metabolic burden. This is part of the mystery, not one of the answers. Why should fructose from HFCS behave differently in this respect than fructose from sucrose?

"...fructose is metabolically broken down before it reaches the rate-limiting enzyme (phosphofructokinase), thereby supplying the body with an unregulated source of three-carbon molecules. These molecules are transformed into glycerol and fatty acids, which are eventually taken up by adipose tissue, leading to additional adiposity (Hallfrisch, 1990).

Again, this is a general property of fructose, not a special property of fructose from HFCS. Fructose from sucrose is metabolized in exactly the same way, yet it apparently doesn't lead to as much obesity on a calorie-for-calorie basis.

"...HFCS causes aberrant insulin functioning, in that it bypasses the insulin-driven satiety system (Curry, 1989). Whereas circulating glucose increases insulin release from the pancreas (Vilsboll et al., 2003), fructose does this less efficiently, because cells in the pancreas lack the fructose transporter ( and ). Typically, insulin released by dietary sucrose inhibits eating and increases leptin release (Saad et al., 1998 M.F. Saad, A. Khan, A. Sharma, R. Michael, M.G. Riad-Gabriel and R. Boyadjian et al.

The first sentence is partially in error-- it should say "fructose causes aberrant insulin functioning" rather than specifying HFCS, because again, this bypassing the insulin dependent satiety system is a general property of fructose, not a special property of fructose in HFCS. Fructose in sucrose does the same thing.

I'm still not satisfied that any of this info sheds light on the central problem of mechansism. Why is fructose from HFCS apparently metabolizing differently than the same molecule derived from sucrose?

[pundaint]

200. Hey we could Reform that with more corn subsidies, and maybe forcing Americans

to eat Corn Flakes for breakfast with a box of corn syrup and fruit beverage.

[earth mom]

204. Suspected this all along because the rise in obesity has mirrored the rise of the use of HFCS.

The disinfo that is being spewed in this thread is disgusting because it only muddies the waters and helps no one.

Obviously, Monsanto aka THE DEVIL has their minions working overtime to help them appear harmless in all of this! :mad:

[Javaman]

207. Have you ever read fast food nation?

there was a great study sited in the book regarding fast food.

In the US, since fast food joints started before a proper study could be undertaken to determine if the rise in obesity is connected to fast food, a study instead focused on Japan. Who didn't allow any fast food burger type joints to open in that nation until 1971.

We all know that fast food corps are some of the biggest users of HFCS.

The study reflected as much. The rate of obesity in Japan can be tracked directly to the growth and consumption rate of fast food in Japan.

One of my favorite websites is "how stuff works". They do very thorough research into their topics. One of which was on HFCS. In their report it sited a study that showed how HFCS suppressed lipid production. Lipid is part of a groups of enzymes that regulate appetite. Once, it was found that lipid production was suppressed, they then founds a direct connection to those people who ingest a certain amount of HFCS per day and the rise in their weight. If your body doesn't tell you that you are full, you aren't going to stop eating.

Portion size has increased because HFCS is in basically everything we, as a nation, eat.

[SPedigrees]

212. + an infinite number. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

208. K & R. There is NO good news about HFCS!!!!

It also adds to insulin resistance > diabetes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=84547&mesg_id=84551

[TexasProgresive]

215. This is really funny

When they want to test a drug for lowering triglycerides, rats are given HFCS 10% in their water to elevate their triglycerides. Sounds like some Princeton researchers are reinventing the wheel.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

235. Read all food labels carefully it's hidden in so many items - Soy Sauce

Horseradish - things you'd never even think of.

But there are alternatives - we have been avoiding HFCS for a couple of years now
and there are always alternatives if you take the time to READ FOOD LABELS.

[Cetacea]

236. It also makes me thirsty.