High fructose corn syrup seeks sweeter, more positive name name: corn sugar

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Erasurehead

 

Don't believe me?
Give up sugar, in all forms, including white flour and potato starches for 2 weeks
and then tell me how you feel? It is nothing short of miraculous.

You are absolutely correct. I did give up all sweets and then I added white processed flour and starches like potatoes. It was very difficult to do and I slip every now and then and eat a baked potato plain (or a few bites) but otherwise have deleted it. I feel better than I have in 10 years!

Originally posted by Erasurehead

High fructose corn syrup seeks sweeter, more positive name name: corn sugar

www.nydailynews.com...

The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten up its image with a new name: corn sugar.

The bid to rename the sweetener by the Corn Refiners Association comes as Americans' concerns about health and obesity have sent consumption of high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks but also in bread, cereal and other foods, to a 20-year low.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 9/14/2010 by Erasurehead because: fix link

Years ago I would drink 5-6 sodas a day with HFCS. I gained around 30lbs. Got off it for 3 months and I lost all that weight but I was left with stretch marks on my stomach.

reply to post by texastig
Stretch marks are much better than an early grave, don't you think?
I think so anyway

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Erasurehead

 

No, it's not a lie. And that one study is far from PROOF. Sucrose and HFCS are, metablically, 99% identical. They both contain Fructose and Glucose. While the HFCS used in soft-drinks has a higher Fructose content, the metabolic effects are nearly identical.

Chimp and human DNA is 99% identical......your point is ?

Originally posted by Erasurehead


What mistake did I (the OP) make? You keep stating there is no difference between consuming sucrose vs. HFCS

I'm pretty sure I never said that. What I did say was this:

Sucrose and HFCS are, metablically, 99% identical. They both contain Fructose and Glucose. While the HFCS used in soft-drinks has a higher Fructose content, the metabolic effects are nearly identical.

Easy on the "spinning" of my words.

but the Princeton study shows otherwise. There was no difference in the caloric intake between the rats that ingested HFCS and the rats that ingested sucrose. In every single case the rat given the HFCS gained excessive weight. How can you explain that if there is no difference?

HFCS used in sodas contain more fructose than table sugar (sucrose). So, considering the effects of fructose on the liver and the amount of triglycerides produced as a byproduct, it's safe to assume that when you eat 500-1000g of HFCS, compared to 500-1000g of sucrose, the difference in fructose is substantial, resulting in significantly more lypolysis; however, most people aren't consuming 500g-1000g of HFCS a day. If you keep it under 200g, the difference is relatively speaking insignificant.

I read this study back when it was published and thought, "Holy crap, a study that finally demonstrated a significant difference." However, upon further review, the study was designed to get the desired results.

Also, I mentioned this before, you're citing ONE study showing results in rats when there are multiple studies showing the opposite in humans....

reply to post by benzjie


Congratulations on making one the most ignorant responses in this thread. Have you any idea the difference between metabolism and genetic code?

reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas


That's a fair point. I was simply pointing out that there is a large body of clinical evidence showing no significant metabolic difference between HFCS and sucrose. Claiming that one contradicting study is proof that there is a difference isn't exactly scientific.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by benzjie

 

Congratulations on making one the most ignorant responses in this thread. Have you any idea the difference between metabolism and genetic code?

I think you don't get it. I am trying to make a point through exaggeration. 1 percent can make all the difference in the world be it chemical, dna, metabolism etc etc. Bottom line...allmost the same can be very very different.

How's that for ignorant.

Still very ignorant given the context. We're not talking about DNA or Gene Expression, we're talking about metabolic response.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


pffff..no we're not. We're talking about the fact that almost the same = different and thus one can expect matter to behave differently.
Please step out of the rigid thoughtpattern.

reply to post by benzjie


How many times....

"Different" compounds can illicit identical metabolic responses. And we are talking about metabolic responses.

Here are some of the wonderful things HFCS does for you...

www.washingtonpost.com...


pubs.acs.org...

www.nytimes.com...

www.nytimes.com...

www.dailyfinance.com...|main|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinan ce.com%2Fstory%2Fcancer-slurping-fructose-could-sour-the-soda-business%2F19581530%2F

There is just a whole wealth of info on how bad a refined sugar is bad for you...
Come on people... The argi industry in America is behind the HFCS injection into every product you ingest. What would be the best way to impose GMO food bases to millions of people? Genetic altered corn refined into a substitue the lobbied into use by our government to "help American farmers"... 25 years later the results of the failed FDA to do long term studies starts showing ...Over weight..etc.

reply to post by tsloan


From one of your links:

“Sugar was the old devil, and high-fructose corn syrup is the new devil,”

This is the problem I have with stating HFCS is worse than sugar. People forget that sugar is very detrimental as well.

There are some obvious problem associated with the extreme processing when making HFCS. Mercury, as one of your links pointed out, is one of them.

I read this article today and had a good laugh. I regularly don't eat sugars- and re-naming HFCS "corn sugar" doesn't sound any different or healthier to me. In fact, it is one more ingredient I will be scouring the label for as I go shopping. I wont buy products with that item in the ingredients either. The other day I was eating some light yogurt and the label said "sweetened with sucralose and other sweeteners" OTHER SWEETENERS?! That means they can sneak stuff in there under that vague umbrella and call it "light" or whatever, the bastards. I try to stick to whole foods anyway. I cook it myself and at least I can vouch for 9/10 ingredients. This crap is just getting stupid. They will spend a lot of money re-branding to what purpose? It insults our intelligence as consumers.

IMO, HFCS has a "bite" to it with regard to taste that sucrose lacks. A recent blind taste test by the Dr. Pepper/7-UP company found that people prefer soda sweetened with sucrose rather than HFCS.

You can really taste it in brands of chocolate syrup that use HFCS, and also the really cheap generic canned frosting and other products. I also like chocolate fudge when it's made with table sugar, but I really don't like fudge made with corn syrup. It's unpleasant to my taste buds.

As a matter of fact, when I get a chocolate shake at a soft serve place, I usually ask them to use chocolate soft serve to make it instead of vanilla and their cheap chocolate syrup because of the sharp taste it has.

So, health effects aside, I think HFCS adversely affects taste and product quality.

Quote from study below:
"Blood fructose, cholesterol, fructosamine and glycated hemoglobin levels, and urine lipid peroxidation products were significantly higher in fructose-fed rats compared with the other sugar-fed and control rats."

It's been estimated that tens of millions of Americans get up to half their calories from sweetened beverages alone. Usually that's soda pop or sports beverages sweetened with HFCS or what's erroneously called "juice" down the juice aisle, the stuff containing 5% juice and the rest is flavored HFCS. Although, real juice is primarily fructose as well, and it would be a lot more healthy if the whole fruit was consumed with the fiber in-tact.

Good old Kool-Aid made with table sugar is probably not as bad for you as the so-called "juice" that most people give to their children.


J Nutr. 1998 Sep;128(9):1442-9.

Long-term fructose consumption accelerates glycation and several age-related variables in male rats.
Levi B, Werman MJ.

Department of Food Engineering and Biotechnology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.

Fructose intake has increased steadily during the past two decades. Fructose, like other reducing sugars, can react with proteins through the Maillard reaction (glycation), which may account for several complications of diabetes mellitus and accelerating aging. In this study, we evaluated the effect of fructose intake on some age-related variables. Rats were fed for 1 y a commercial nonpurified diet, and had free access to water or 250 g/L solutions of fructose, glucose or sucrose. Early glycation products were evaluated by blood glycated hemoglobin and fructosamine concentrations. Lipid peroxidation was estimated by urine thiobarbituric reactive substances. Skin collagen crosslinking was evaluated by solubilization in natural salt or diluted acetic acid solutions, and by the ratio between beta- and alpha-collagen chains. Advanced glycation end products were evaluated by collagen-linked fluorescence in bones. The ratio between type-III and type-I collagens served as an aging variable and was measured in denatured skin collagen. The tested sugars had no effect on plasma glucose concentrations. Blood fructose, cholesterol, fructosamine and glycated hemoglobin levels, and urine lipid peroxidation products were significantly higher in fructose-fed rats compared with the other sugar-fed and control rats. Acid-soluble collagen and the type-III to type-I ratio were significantly lower, whereas insoluble collagen, the beta to alpha ratio and collagen-bound fluorescence at 335/385 nm (excitation/emission) were significantly higher in fructose-fed rats than in the other groups. The data suggest that long-term fructose consumption induces adverse effects on aging; further studies are required to clarify the precise role of fructose in the aging process.

PMID: 9732303

reply to post by IamCorrect

Rats were fed for 1 y a commercial nonpurified diet, and had free access to water or 250 g/L solutions of fructose, glucose or sucrose.

See, this study had nothing to do with HFCS.

And, just for fun, can you find me a product on the market containing fructose only?

Heres some firsthand knowledge from someone who made the switch. I used to drink several Cokes a day,loaded with HFCS. I was obese,and my trig level was off the scale. I IMMEDIATELY cut all HFCS out of my diet and would only drink/eat things that were made with real sugar. Within about 2 months I noticed a massive amount of weight loss and my trig level is now within whats considered normal range. I also feel better than I have in YEARS. I have noticed,however,that many of the stores in my area have stopped carrying sugar-based HFCS free products. For a couple of months,I was seeing sodas and other products EVERYWHERE that were advertising the fact that they were HFCS free(I even picked up a couple of bottles of Hunts ketchup that proudly proclaimed they were HFCS free). Now none of them can be found,and the local grocery store manager I spoke to said that they were ordered to pull all their Mexican Cokes without notice and send them back to the bottling plant. Nobody in my area is stocking the Mexican Cokes now,and they were everywhere just a few months ago. Needless to say,I am now going through complete and total soda withdrawl and am seriously considering taking up smoking to get me through it....or maybe crack. Crack isnt made with HFCS is it????

reply to post by The ?


Sugar will do the same thing. It will make you fat and it will increase triglycerides and VLDL and small dense, pattern B LDL and inflammation and glycation and....well, everything that HFCS will do.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by IamCorrect

 

Rats were fed for 1 y a commercial nonpurified diet, and had free access to water or 250 g/L solutions of fructose, glucose or sucrose.

See, this study had nothing to do with HFCS.

Not directly. But it demonstrates the fallacy of the notion that some have that all sugars have the same degree of deleterious effects, or that the disaccharide sucrose (table sugar) is just as bad for you as fructose or glucose independently because it is composed of glucose and sucrose.

HFCS is not roughly equivalent to sucrose as if often contended, because it is not in disaccharide form, and the two component monosaccharides are not fused together by a glycosidic bond. Moreover, the ratio of fructose to glucose is increased.

And I also don't understand your question about naming a product on the market containing only fructose. The rodents in this study didn't consume only fructose. They consumed extra fructose through supplementation in their water. They still had chow with a high percentage of complex carbohydrates.