[Athens]

OK this is a spill over from the other debate on debt because its basically morphed into its own debate. I argue that this sugar has been the biggest mistake on mankind since its introduction 30 years ago. It has lead to more deaths and health problems and costs then any other substance in use currently. This is mostly a North American problem now with Japan closing in along with China. The obesity epidemic in North American is directly related to this sugar. The artificial pricing of corn though large subsidies has made it the most economical sugar to use in North America which is a stark contrast to Europe which limits its production. Most products in Europe use sucrose because of this limit and are not facing the same kind of obesity epidemic like us. The direct effect has been enormous on social lives, medical conditions and productivity. Large costs to our medical systems and a lowering of the quality of life. The food industry is well aware of these effects and profit from it because they know the substance causes issues with our bodies ability to know its full. They also prefer it because its cheap. Im curious if any one has a opposite opinion on this.

[Athens]

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post4103636

Responding via new Thread Topic

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I applaud you for giving a thorough link, with lots of good information, and one that seems very relevant to the question at hand. Unfortunately, I have to reveal some serious flaws with the study itself (which I went and looked up).

First, the main conclusions highlighted in the article were comparing between HFCS and "chow" (unsweetened regular rat food), NOT between HFCS and sucrose. This isn't just the reporter's fault either, the study itself also makes this comparison.

Here's one graph where they actually do include sucrose for comparison:


Not really all that much difference is there?

Here's the other one:


Notice how the first two columns (white and black, with a big difference) are corn syrup vs unsweetened chow. The ones relevant to our discussion are the second pair, white and gray for 12-h sucrose vs 12-h corn syrup. There's no significant difference!

These results aside, lab rats are not a terrific model for humans, they're kind of a couch potato or prisoner model (in this paper as in most, they are housed individually (ie solitary confinement, a stress condition for a social animal like rodents or humans)). They're stressed, they don't get much exercise, don't get much social interaction, and they don't get much intellectual enrichment. I think this is why there's such a huge weight gain even in the unsweetened chow condition. Anyway, take rodent studies with a grain of salt. no pun intended

Do you have a source for the 2 graphs, I suspect they came from studies funded by the HFCS industry itself. I would like to check the source studies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post4103636

Responding via new Thread Topic



Do you have a source for the 2 graphs, I suspect they came from studies funded by the HFCS industry itself. I would like to check the source studies.

No, it's the exact study you linked to, that the article was about:

High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010] - PubMed result
(You can see that it's the same author (Hoebel), same institution (Princeton), same journal (Pharm Biochem Behav), same year (2010), and obviously the same topic. I can read the whole article through my university's site license; I don't know about the general public but if you want it I can forward it to you. I'm not going to push the envelope by copying the whole thing publicly)

This was in the cover story you linked to too:
"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."

(emphasis mine)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The obesity epidemic in North American is directly related to this sugar.

I have a counter-proposal. The rise in obesity is caused by the rise in sedentary professions (computer user), larger portions (super-size me), luxury transportation (2 cars in every garage), and ridiculously cheap food in general which ironically is partly due to the things you mentioned like food subsidies, protective tariffs, and cheaper high-tech raw materials like HFCS But not because HFCS per se is that much worse for you than cane or beet sugar.

Edit: to be clear, I don't like HFCS, I think it's a net negative, and we're wasting fair amount of collective energy running in circles in order to replace cane sugar with corn sugar for no benefit and some harm, and I do go slightly out of my way to avoid it in my personal life. But what I'm arguing here is that it's not as bad as people think, the reaction is overly strong, HFCS should be way down the list of problems we should worry about, and we shouldn't be expecting changes on this issue to be any kind of shortcut to health or wealth.

[Atheist]

I have an even better theory. People are fat because they eat too much and sit on their asses. All this obsession with what people are eating is silly.

It's all about calories in and calories burned.

Quit trying to find a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs.

[Athens]

A calorie isn't a calorie. What gets turned into fat and what gets used up are important. What supresses the signal to tell your brain your full does matter. When I started avoiding HFCS which is in almost every thing I started losing weight with no other changes. I never feel hungry any more either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Eating too much and not feeling full is the same thing

[ghporter]

HFCS is not EVIL, but it's a solution in search of a problem. And the food manufacturers found a problem for it to solve. By using a much cheaper sweetener available, the corn industry has convinced food makers that "a whole lot sweeter is a whole lot better." But since empty calories are still empty, that means that it's cheaper to make foods that are a lot less "good for you" in terms of uninformed people eating what they think tastes good. In my subjective experience, foods with corn syrup, with HFCS, and with cane sugar taste different, (I can, for example, do a head-to-head comparison of US Coke, and Mexican Coke, the former sweetened with HFCS, the latter with cane sugar), and with foods that aren't simply a vehicle for sweet and fizzy, like cakes or cookies, those with HFCS seem sweeter. I do not think it a coincidence that these foods also appear to have a higher calorie count...

The system that helps us regulate our intake of food depends on a number of signals. One is the stomach's distention. which is pretty obvious, but two others are peak blood sugar (simple sugars are absorbed almost immediately through contact with stomach lining, and are further broken down into "simplest" sugars through the stomach and duodenum), and lipid levels in the duodenum (which is where bile emulsifies fats). Between those two major control systems, we have put a "crazy monkey at the switch*" by eating highly processed foods that contain high levels of simple sugars like sucrose and concentrated fructose, and added, altered fats. In short, we suppress the "full" feeling with highly processed foods, depending on the much slower and easy to suppress stomach distention sensation. Eating "real" foods made with food products instead of "ingredients" is both simple and practical, and it's pretty surprising how quickly the difference in diet can make a difference in how you feel and how you look.

*Extra points if you caught my reference there...

[Big Mac]

You think corn syrup is sweeter than cane sugar? I beg to differ. Mexican Coke is much sweeter than most American Cokes (save for those that get extra helpings of syrup).

Corn syrup conspiracies are kind of like 9/11 conspiracies. Both seem somewhat convincing but are almost entirely a waste of time ultimately.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A calorie isn't a calorie. What gets turned into fat and what gets used up are important. What supresses the signal to tell your brain your full does matter. When I started avoiding HFCS which is in almost every thing I started losing weight with no other changes. I never feel hungry any more either.

I'll agree that a calorie is not a calorie. However you're argument is based on the premise that those consuming the HFCS are doing it unwillingly. All food sold in the US is labeled. It is incumbent upon the consumer to educate themselves and eat properly.

Although I accept Glenn's explanation about sugars and how they affect our feeling of full as being logical, I would argue we aren't machines. We're breathing, thinking beings. If we look in the mirror and see we are fat, we need to eat less. Not blame HFCS or the evil industry that is foisting it upon us (not implying that was Glenn's argument).

I've lost 10 pounds in the last month by simply reducing the number of calories I consume. I haven't eliminated a single thing from my diet. I even have dessert most evenings.

Everything in moderation... that's the key.

Oh... and I agree with Big Mac. The Coke they sell here in the DR is sweetened with cane sugar and I find it sweeter than the Coke in the US.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

We're ... thinking beings.

Well, some of us are. Others are more than willing to receive their thoughts from marketing departments and to not make the effort to inform themselves.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, some of us are. Others are more than willing to receive their thoughts from marketing departments and to not make the effort to inform themselves.

And in that case, I blame the person, not the marketing departments.

[Athens]

Atheist have you ever spent any time in the US? The science behind manipulative marketing is a entire topic of its own.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I have an even better theory. People are fat because they eat too much and sit on their asses. All this obsession with what people are eating is silly.

It's all about calories in and calories burned.

Quit trying to find a scapegoat and put the blame where it belongs.

FTMFW

The *kind* of food plays a minor role in obesity.
Look, everyone knows: many people drinking and eating "diet" stuff are still fat.
That's because they never adjust their total calory intake.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

HFCS is not EVIL, but it's a solution in search of a problem. And the food manufacturers found a problem for it to solve. By using a much cheaper sweetener available, the corn industry has convinced food makers that "a whole lot sweeter is a whole lot better." But since empty calories are still empty, that means that it's cheaper to make foods that are a lot less "good for you" in terms of uninformed people eating what they think tastes good. In my subjective experience, foods with corn syrup, with HFCS, and with cane sugar taste different, (I can, for example, do a head-to-head comparison of US Coke, and Mexican Coke, the former sweetened with HFCS, the latter with cane sugar), and with foods that aren't simply a vehicle for sweet and fizzy, like cakes or cookies, those with HFCS seem sweeter. I do not think it a coincidence that these foods also appear to have a higher calorie count...

The system that helps us regulate our intake of food depends on a number of signals. One is the stomach's distention. which is pretty obvious, but two others are peak blood sugar (simple sugars are absorbed almost immediately through contact with stomach lining, and are further broken down into "simplest" sugars through the stomach and duodenum), and lipid levels in the duodenum (which is where bile emulsifies fats). Between those two major control systems, we have put a "crazy monkey at the switch*" by eating highly processed foods that contain high levels of simple sugars like sucrose and concentrated fructose, and added, altered fats. In short, we suppress the "full" feeling with highly processed foods, depending on the much slower and easy to suppress stomach distention sensation. Eating "real" foods made with food products instead of "ingredients" is both simple and practical, and it's pretty surprising how quickly the difference in diet can make a difference in how you feel and how you look.

*Extra points if you caught my reference there...

You do realise that the body metabolises HFCS and Sucrose totally differently right?
You do realise that the end results from that have totally different effects on the body right?

There is a massive difference of effect between the 2 sugars. And the countries that use HFCS are the ones with people getting obese, diabetic and heat disease increases.

Look of the makeup of Coke. Its mostly Salt. (Make you thirsty) They then add a lot of Sugar into it to hide the Salt. The caffeine is to help you lose water and to make you addicted to it.

[Big Mac]

And addicted I am! I love my corn syrup! Come to think of it, I do feel like having another Coke soon after the first at times. . .

Food for thought. I've heard conflicting things from science about whether corn syrup is equivalent in all respects to normal sugar.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why am I not surprised that someone named "Big Mac" is defending junk food?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by uncle skeleton 

why am i not surprised that someone named "big mac" is defending junk food?

+1 rofl

@bigmac

BTW Corn syrup isn't the same as High Fructose corn Syrup.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Atheist have you ever spent any time in the US? The science behind manipulative marketing is a entire topic of its own.

I am an American and lived the first 40 years of my life there. I work for a US company and even now spend about 3 months per year in the States.

What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Nobody, I repeat, nobody, is tying people down and force-feeding them!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look of the makeup of Coke. Its mostly Salt. (Make you thirsty) They then add a lot of Sugar into it to hide the Salt. The caffeine is to help you lose water and to make you addicted to it.

You're not doing yourself a favor stating wrong "facts".

12oz of Coke:
45mg sodium
39g sugar

The assertion that there's a lot of salt (to make you thirsty), masked by sugar, is laughable.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You think corn syrup is sweeter than cane sugar? I beg to differ. Mexican Coke is much sweeter than most American Cokes (save for those that get extra helpings of syrup).

It depends on what amounts of each are used in equal volumes of final product, so you are kind of comparing the wrong thing. However, you are basically correct in that the version of HFCS that is most commonly used in soft drinks is actually on par with table sugar in relative sweetness (there is another version used in other applications that is much sweeter).

[Athens]

Sweetness Scale

Sweetners

HFCS in pop which is the 55-45 mix is sweeter then sucrose. Not a whole lot, the difference between Glucose and Sucrose is larger then the gap between HFCS and Glucose.


Some of the big problems with how food has changed in the last 30 years.
- Fructose in human diet was very limited until the creation of HFCS in 1957. That didn't start making its way into food until much later though.
- 1980's fat free craze, fat was being replaced in food with Sugar. And for ever g of fat removed 2+ g of sugar was added. Be it sucrose or HFCS.

Between the addition of more and more sugar to our products and the HFCS development. Its resulted in a very costly population needing all kinds of medical interventions. Its not just about over eating. Over eating is a issue with morbidly obese people. The overall population is getting larger and even those that look relatively healthy are developing medical conditions which was rare before.

Its so simplistic to blame people for over eating. Its simplistic to ignore the biochemical mechanism of how our bodies work.

So I ask this, (I still have a study to read from US) but many studies have shown a difference between weight gain and medical conditions in rats between the 2 sugars. The places on the planet suffering the largest increases in diabetes, heart disease are the ones that are mostly using HFCS. The places that are not do not have the same trends. The fattest and sickest people on this planet buy population happens to be the one using HFCS the most and the longest.

So you have research saying its so, you have trends pointing to it yet its still defended, I don't get it. I doubt any of you work in the corn industry to care so what gives....

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A calorie isn't a calorie.

Yes it is.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Between the addition of more and more sugar to our products and the HFCS development. Its resulted in a very costly population needing all kinds of medical interventions.

You're going to have to show how it's not just the former. It's obvious that more sugar is going to be more fattening than less sugar. But I've seen no evidence that the same amount of HFCS is more fattening than the same amount of sucrose.

Its not just about over eating. Over eating is a issue with morbidly obese people. The overall population is getting larger and even those that look relatively healthy are developing medical conditions which was rare before.

The overall population is eating larger portions than earlier generations. And manufacturers are putting more sweetener in things than before, because it's cheaper than before. But I haven't seen any evidence that which sweetener matters more than how much sweetener.

I'm only halfway through the youtube link you gave in the last thread, but so far he has confirmed all my claims: fructose is no more fattening than sucrose but it's the amounts that have changed. All the "evils" of fructose that he is extolling are about tricks to get people to eat more of it (like the sodium and leptin angles you remember). You might recall he showed how a coke bottle used to be 10 oz and now it's 24 oz and they sell a 60 oz too. Again, it's the amount of sweetener, not the type of sweetener.
I would reference the exact text, but this is why video is a poor medium for this sort of thing: you can't.

Its so simplistic to blame people for over eating. Its simplistic to ignore the biochemical mechanism of how our bodies work.

That's not a bad thing, that's Occam's razor.

many studies have shown a difference between weight gain and medical conditions in rats between the 2 sugars.

Show some

The places on the planet suffering the largest increases in diabetes, heart disease are the ones that are mostly using HFCS. The places that are not do not have the same trends. The fattest and sickest people on this planet buy population happens to be the one using HFCS the most and the longest.

High-tech ingredients correlate with wealth. Wealth correlates with soft pampered white-collar citizens and disorders of excess and "too much of a good thing."

So you have research saying its so, you have trends pointing to it yet its still defended, I don't get it. I doubt any of you work in the corn industry to care so what gives....

What gives is that your overzealousness on this topic has lead you to misrepresent the facts again and again (like when the youtube guy said coke contains some salt to make you drink more of it, and the sugar masks the salt, and then you translated that into "filled with salt plus some sugar"), and we have learned by experience to be skeptical until you provide evidence. All the evidence you've provided so far has turned out to be the opposite of what you claimed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its so simplistic to blame people for over eating.

Yes, it's much easier than to just make up shi!t, throw in strawmen, bring up unrelated facts, mix up correlation with causation etc.

Coincidentally, it's also a much more accurate representation of reality.

-t

[Athens]

@Uncle S, Did you read the study you sent me? I mean actually read it not just look at the graphs? I just finished skimming most of it and reading a lot of it and it validates everything I said?

[Athens]

High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body
weight, body fat and triglyceride levels
Miriam E. Bocarsly a,b, Elyse S. Powell a,b, Nicole M. Avena a,b,c, Bartley G. Hoebel a,b,⁎
a Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
b Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
c The Rockefeller University, Laboratory of Behavioral Neurobiology, New York, NY 10021, USA


from one of the graphs you posted the text that goes with it

As seen in Fig. 3, female rats with 24-h access to HFCS for
7 months gained more body weight than chow- and sucrose-fed
controls (F(1,14)=8.74, p b0.01). Difference in body weight
compared to ad libitum chow-fed controls was seen as early as
week 5, and it reached statistical significance at week 24 (pb0.05).
There was also a statistically significant difference in body weight,
with 24-h HFCS rats weighing more than sucrose-fed rats at week 25
(F(4,35)=4.24, pb0.05). During the 7-month experimental period,
the females with ad libitum chow gained a normal amount of weight,
177% from their initial baseline body weight. At the end of the study,
the 12-h HFCS and sucrose groups were 183% of baseline, and the
group with 24-h access to HFCS weighed the most, on average,
ending the experiment at 200% of baseline.

5. Conclusion
In summary, rats maintained on a diet rich in HFCS for 6 or
7 months show abnormal weight gain, increased circulating TG and
augmented fat deposition. All of these factors indicate obesity. Thus,
over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the
“obesity epidemic,” which correlates with the upsurge in the use of
HFCS.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I mean actually read it not just look at the graphs?

The graphs are what's important. If there is ever any conflict, standard procedure in science is that the graphs outweigh the text.

There was also a statistically significant difference in body weight,
with 24-h HFCS rats weighing more than sucrose-fed rats at week 25
(F(4,35)=4.24, pb0.05).

That's because the only sucrose-fed group was on restricted diet (12-h access not 24-h aka ad libitum). When you compare apples to apples (both sweeteners on restricted diet), there wasn't a difference. That's why they specify the 24-h condition for HFCS but not for sucrose.

This is exactly why the graphs are considered more important. They give more unbiased information. It's simply not possible to include all the details in the text, and it's also not possible for the editors to proof-read it that way. The text is just a guide through the figures, which contain the real info.

[Athens]

Ok then take this into consideration, we are talking about rats, how much of a variation are you expecting on a graph for such a small light animal. Im reading the text of the study because I don't know how to read the graphs in context to the study and the problem with the study you got those graphs from is it clearly says HFCS increases weight, and other issues. Taking a graph out of a study that says one thing and trying to use the graph to disprove the very study does not make sense.

[Athens]

The experiment had 24 /h HFCS and 12 /h HFCS and 12 /h Sucrose.

Reading the test are important not just looking at the graphs as this points out

"Since we did not see effects of
sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1 with males, we did not
include sucrose groups in this long-term analysis in males."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ok then take this into consideration, we are talking about rats, how much of a variation are you expecting on a graph for such a small light animal.

The error bars (the little t-shaped lines above and below each data point) generally indicate about a 95% confidence interval, unless otherwise marked*. That represents the variability, based on the subjects used in this actual experiment. Larger error bars would indicate more variability. The variability they observed is normal for a rat experiment. You can assume that on average, only 5% of the rats will score outside the error bars.

Very rough rule of thumb: if the error bars between two groups don't overlap, they're probably statistically different. There are actual statistical tests they do to confirm this observation, and the results of these are indicated by asterisks.

*what it actually is is the statistical variance divided by the square root of the sample number, which roughly equates to a 95% confidence interval.

Im reading the text of the study because I don't know how to read the graphs in context to the study and the problem with the study you got those graphs from is it clearly says HFCS increases weight, and other issues.

They can't state every caveat in the text, so you have to use your brain. The important unspoken caveat in this case is that they're comparing 24-h HFCS to many controls, and one of those is 12-h sucrose.

Taking a graph out of a study that says one thing and trying to use the graph to disprove the very study does not make sense.

No, that's exactly how it's supposed to work. The graphs are how the scientist tries to prove their point in the first place. If the graphs don't prove what they say they do, it is precisely what you're supposed to do, "to use it against them."

Now in this case, the scientist is claiming that HFCS causes these certain effects compared with unsweetened chow. They say this again and again, even if they don't emphasize this. They work with what they have.

Originally Posted by Athens 

The experiment had 24 /h HFCS and 12 /h HFCS and 12 /h Sucrose.

Reading the text are important not just looking at the graphs as this points out

"Since we did not see effects of
sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1 with males, we did not
include sucrose groups in this long-term analysis in males."

Experiment 1 was shown in a table, not a graph. This is usually done to downplay the data, as it is less relevant, or it doesn't quite support the main result.

Here, Experiment 1 is a pilot study, a shorter test (2m vs 6m) to get a preview of the results. Unfortunately for them, the pilot study was misleading, as it told them that sucrose wouldn't cause weight gain over regular chow. So then they went ahead with the 6-month study without including a sufficient sucrose control, and they got burned by the fact that sucrose actually did cause weight gain in the longer study. This is bad luck. But they can't do a whole new 6-month study just to pick up that extra ad-lib-sucrose control, so they go forward with what they have. (or actually we can't tell, maybe they are doing another long study and it's just not out yet; this was only last year).

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You do realise that the body metabolises HFCS and Sucrose totally differently right?
You do realise that the end results from that have totally different effects on the body right?

There is a massive difference of effect between the 2 sugars. And the countries that use HFCS are the ones with people getting obese, diabetic and heat disease increases.

Look of the makeup of Coke. Its mostly Salt. (Make you thirsty) They then add a lot of Sugar into it to hide the Salt. The caffeine is to help you lose water and to make you addicted to it.

Fructose is a simple sugar. Sucrose is a compound sugar, made up of glucose and fructose. Metabolizing HFCS has not been shown to be significantly different chemically from metabolizing fructose from any other source. The difference is the fructose concentration involved, which is often notably higher per unit of consumed food. Metabolizing sucrose starts by breaking it down to its component sugars, glucose and fructose, which are absorbed in the small intestine.

Fructose has some interesting quirks when compared to glucose: it is not always all absorbed in the small intestine, which leads to fermentation reactions in the large intestine (and gas, bloating, cramping and sometimes diarrhea), and it is actively processed by the liver whereas glucose seems to pretty much pass straight through. Fructose thus has the potential to alter the liver's control of a number of metabolic systems.

You suggest that it is the chemical itself that is "evil" in HFCS. Chemically, high fructose corn syrup is corn syrup that has been enzymatically processed to convert some of the glucose content to fructose. Typical mixes are HFCS 45 and HFCS 55, containing 45% or 55% fructose respectively. It is not clear whether the resultant fructose is of the 5-ring or 6-ring variety, but from the evidence I see it's probably the 6-ring variety, which is about as sweet tasting as sucrose. This is important because 5-ring fructose is considered 1.75 times as sweet as sucrose; 5-ring fructose used as a sweetener could result in substantially less fructose content for the same sweetness... Anyway, there's nothing "evil" in using any particular natural sweetener. Further, your suggestion that Coke is intentionally concocted to addict people is kind of silly. Coke is formulated to provide a specific flavor (not quite as good as before 1985, but not as bad as the 1986 version!), with a particular taste/mouth feel experience. If anything, you should be concerned about the phosphoric acid content of sodas in general; people obtaining significant levels of hydration from soft drinks that contain artificially enhanced acid levels often present with important alterations in a variety of metabolic systems, including in fat and protein digestion.

The whole point here is that, whether you get tons of it from Coca-cola or a lot less from eating an apple, fructose is a different sort of sugar from glucose, and while sucrose is a combination of fructose and glucose, that combination appears to be protective in some regards against the metabolic alteration overconsumption of fructose can cause. If one simply accepts what would have been considered "normal sweetness levels" in foods as recently as 10 years ago, the (natural) sweetener used is relatively unimportant. If we accept today's almost hyper-sweet foods as the norm, we're going to take in a whole lot more fructose, which might not be particularly good for us in a number of ways.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010] - PubMed result

Please. They could have given rats access to a saturated solution of fructose and obtained similar results compared to the HFCS group. However, the conclusion would then have to mention the dangers of consuming too much fruit.

[Athens]

Fructose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder how many Apples it would take to compare to the amount of Fructose in a can pop. Should also warn drinking to much water will kill you too.

"When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose instead of glucose results in lower circulating insulin and leptin levels, and higher ghrelin levels after the meal.[61] Since leptin and insulin decrease appetite and ghrelin increases appetite, some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[62]
Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[63

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Should also warn drinking to much water will kill you too.

That's exactly my point. No one is magically becoming obese overnight from HFCS. It's a gradual process with many factors. It's ridiculous how you want to blame those evil carbohydrates for a problem that begins with a lack of personal responsibility.

Fat people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise enough. Peer review that.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Fructose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder how many Apples it would take to compare to the amount of Fructose in a can pop. Should also warn drinking to much water will kill you too.

Not sure about how many apples it would take but it seems to me that a glass of apple juice has about the same amount of fructose as a can of soda.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

That's exactly my point. No one is magically becoming obese overnight from HFCS. It's a gradual process with many factors. It's ridiculous how you want to blame those evil carbohydrates for a problem that begins with a lack of personal responsibility.

Fat people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise enough. Peer review that.

No you have missed the point totally. More and More sugar has been put into our foods in the last 20 years. On top of that HFCS is worse then regular Fructose because of how it interacts with body. That small difference in its chemical makeup has had a drastic affect. Sucrose which is 50 - 50 Glucose and Fructose (table sugar) has been shown to be less of affect on the human body vs HFCS which is 45 - Glucose and 55 Fructose with a weaker bond. Thats the problem. Not only has more sugar been added into food, a different kind of sugar has been created as well and the combination speaks for itself. Its not a issue of personal responsibility when the food itself is blocking the signals that tells your brain your full. I guess you can blame personal responsibility for not avoiding any food with HFCS in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No you have missed the point totally. More and More sugar has been put into our foods in the last 20 years.

That's exactly what he said. And what I said. The amount matters. The variety is mostly irrelevant.

On top of that HFCS is worse then regular Fructose because of how it interacts with body. That small difference in its chemical makeup has had a drastic affect. Sucrose which is 50 - 50 Glucose and Fructose (table sugar) has been shown to be less of affect on the human body vs HFCS which is 45 - Glucose and 55 Fructose with a weaker bond.

So 50% and 100% are A-ok, but 55% is poison?

Its not a issue of personal responsibility when the food itself is blocking the signals that tells your brain your full. I guess you can blame personal responsibility for not avoiding any food with HFCS in the first place.

Yes, that is still an issue of irresponsibility. You don't have to eat just because you're "not full," you're not a slave to your gluttony. And if you CHOOSE to do keep eating anyway, then that is your own problem.

[Athens]

Every one is a slave to their bio-chemical signals. Every aspect of who you are, how you function and what you do is from the signals, hormones and other bio-chemicals that make up your person. If the system that tells you your full is broken and you feel hungry how do you expect some one to ignore this horrible feeling. Try it yourself, don't eat for 5 entire days and see what it feels like on the 5th. I doubt you could ignore it beyond a single day before breaking down and eating something. Now imagine thats how you feel most of the time.

To be clear all Fructose is poison. But the bond that makes up sucrose which binds the fructose to the glucose is different then the bond in HFCS. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. What is proven and known is that HFCS does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production both of which controls hunger and body weight. I am willing to concede that its not JUST HFCS alone, that the addition of more sugars to everything plays a large roll in it as well. But much evidence points to HFCS being a big enough difference to matter. Otherwise the entire planet would be as fat as North Americans instead of it being isolated to those that have switched to HFCS as the primary sugar source. The correlation between the 2 are impossible to ignore.

[Eug]

I am constantly disappointed in people's desire to distill all the world's ills down a single agent, such as high fructose corn syrup.

It's frickin sugar syrup. Get over it. Stop with the BS HFCS conspiracy theories already and just eat more healthily in general and get some exercise.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Every one is a slave to their bio-chemical signals. Every aspect of who you are, how you function and what you do is from the signals, hormones and other bio-chemicals that make up your person. If the system that tells you your full is broken and you feel hungry how do you expect some one to ignore this horrible feeling. Try it yourself, don't eat for 5 entire days and see what it feels like on the 5th. I doubt you could ignore it beyond a single day before breaking down and eating something. Now imagine thats how you feel most of the time.

That's garbage. The effects of HFCS are nowhere near that strong, and you would still be capable of mind over matter even if they were. You're not actually starving, and it doesn't take an idiot to see that when you're gaining weight the whole time not losing it. People eat when they're starving because they have to in order to live. If they just "feel" like they're starving, that is different. People "feel" like punching their boss for a lot longer than 5 days, but they're still capable of resisting.

To be clear all Fructose is poison. But the bond that makes up sucrose which binds the fructose to the glucose is different then the bond in HFCS. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. What is proven and known is that HFCS does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production both of which controls hunger and body weight.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. You've shown time and again that you're just parroting semi-random factoids you don't understand, that sound impressive and sound like they support your pre-conceptions.

Most Americans eat a ton of HFCS, and only a quarter of them are obese. So clearly it's not "poison" and clearly it's not deterministic.

Furthermore, every single substance on earth is toxic in high enough doses, you've brought this up yourself. So again it's not the nature of the substance, it's the quantities.

Finally insulin and leptin are only part of the satiety system, and only part of their contribution is bypassed by fructose. Blaming this for being unable to control yourself is an absurd victim mentality.

But much evidence points to HFCS being a big enough difference to matter. Otherwise the entire planet would be as fat as North Americans instead of it being isolated to those that have switched to HFCS as the primary sugar source. The correlation between the 2 are impossible to ignore.

Put up or shut up. Show this evidence or stop claiming it exists. You already tried one study, and it turned out to show the opposite of what you thought (sucrose and corn syrup did the same thing). How can you learn nothing from that?

HFCS is not the only thing that makes North America different from slimmer countries. We also watch more TV.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Athens 

To be clear all Fructose is poison. But the bond that makes up sucrose which binds the fructose to the glucose is different then the bond in HFCS.

You're absolutely correct. The glycosidic bond that joins fructose and glucose is NOT present in monosaccharides, like fructose. However, the same applies to other monosaccharides such as glucose, which lacks a glycosidic linkage by default. Please explain why other monosaccadires are not poisonous, like the fructose contained in HFCS.

The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose.

The exact same thing applies to any other disaccharide and one of its component monosaccharides. A disaccharide is composed of two monosaccharides by definition.

I am willing to concede that its not JUST HFCS alone, that the addition of more sugars to everything plays a large roll in it as well. But much evidence points to HFCS being a big enough difference to matter.

So what? Nutrition information, on every food product, lists the total amount of sugar and type. You have a choice not to buy products that contain excessive amounts of HFCS. Again, it's about personal responsibility. Much evidence points to a lack of it

The correlation between the 2 are impossible to ignore.

You've presented some basic carbohydrate chemistry used to describe sugars, that's all.

[Athens]

Glucose is the bodies natural energy, every single cell can use Glucose as energy. Fructose though is alien to the body only the liver can metabolize fructose and its this process that is the problem.In that process only a small % of it gets turned into usable energy for the body. A lot of it gets turned into small cell fat cells which are the ones that stick to arteries. Fructose instead of being burned up by the body like Glucose gets turned into body fat. The process also releases a acid in the blood that results in high blood pressure.

How do you avoid sugar when its been added to almost every product.... Are you trying to say people should just not eat?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Put up or shut up. Show this evidence or stop claiming it exists. You already tried one study, and it turned out to show the opposite of what you thought (sucrose and corn syrup did the same thing). How can you learn nothing from that?

HFCS is not the only thing that makes North America different from slimmer countries. We also watch more TV.

BULLSHIT, it proved exactly what I was saying, your the only who didn't read the study and misread and mis-interpreted pictures...

[Athens]

Oh here it is, I hope you have a Library Card. I can provide more....

http://www.fasebj.org/content/21/2/366.full.pdf Inhibition of the intestinal glucose transporter GLUT2 by flavonoids

Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome Obesity - Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice[ast][ast]

Basciano H, Federico L, Adeli K (2005). "Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia". Nutrition & Metabolism Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

Lustig RH (2006). "Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics". Nature clinical practice. Endocrinology & metabolism PS this was the guy in the presentation I sent you from UC Berkley Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism | Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics | Article

Isganaitis E; Lustig RH (2005). "Fast food, central nervous system insulin resistance, and obesity" Fast Food, Central Nervous System Insulin Resistance, and Obesity

Jürgens H, Haass W, Castañeda TR, et al. (2005). "Consuming fructose-sweetened beverages increases body adiposity in mice Obesity - Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice[ast][ast]

Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition" Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic p... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1989] - PubMed result

Wylie-Rosett, Judith; et al. (2004). "Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference?" Obesity - Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference?

Havel PJ (2001). "Peripheral signals conveying metabolic information to the brain: short-term and long-term regulation of food intake and energy homeostasis" Peripheral signals conveying metabolic information... [Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2001] - PubMed result

Dennison BA, Rockwell HL, Baker SL (1997). "Excess fruit juice consumption by preschool-aged children is associated with short stature and obesity" Excess fruit juice consumption by preschool-aged c... [Pediatrics. 1997] - PubMed result

[Athens]

Oh finally i've been looking for this image to post



Utilization of fructose and glucose in the liver. Hepatic fructose metabolism begins with phosphorylation by fructokinase (EC 2.7.1.4). Fructose carbon enters the glycolytic pathway at the triose phosphate level (dihydroxyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate). Thus, fructose bypasses the major control point by which glucose carbon enters glycolysis (phosphofructokinase; EC 2.7.1.11), where glucose metabolism is limited by feedback inhibition by citrate and ATP. This allows fructose to serve as an unregulated source of both glycerol-3-phosphate and acetyl-CoA for hepatic lipogenesis. P

Additional the uric acid created in this process is a direct cause to high blood pressure.

Now you ask what is a extra 5% of fructose with HFCS, well if your already eating 40 pounds of sugar a year thats a extra 2 pounds of Fructose, and considering the way its not bonded like in sucrose that just adds to its terrible effect on the human body.

Fructose exposure in the 1960s and before was very limited, we had almost none of it in our diets. Sucrose is bad enough with the 50/50 ratio and from the 50-s up people started getting larger. But by 1980 HFCS got added to everything, and was used to replace fat in products, at this point Sugar content in all foods sky rocketed. Since the 1980s our consumption of sugars of all kinds and mostly HFCS has sky rocketed because of this. Every gram of fat that was removed resulted in 2-4 grams of sugar and mostly hfcs being added. 50% of the American population is over weight by the measure of the BMI. 25% obese. Every country that is following this trend is showing the exact same scale of increasing weight gain in the population. Countries that are not are staying stable at pre 1950 levels of over weight people. How can you deny the correlation with a straight and honest face. North American Food is toxic and dangerous and HFCS is one element of this. I can't believe Americans don't bitch about Bovine Growth Hormone from Monsanto which is banned in Canada and Europe. I guess its because most of the population is like the people on these forums. They don't want to believe in anything bad. Food industry can do no evil I guess.... Its not like the industry is driven by profits or anything like that... oh wait it is.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by Athens 

How do you avoid sugar when its been added to almost every product.... Are you trying to say people should just not eat?

It's added to almost every overly processed junk food product. If that is the type of food you obtain the majority of your calories from, then that's a problem. Last time I checked, there was an entire area of the store dedicated to produce, a baking section, places for beans, rice, nuts, meats, spices, and other items one could use to do this crazy thing called cooking. What do you want, fast, cheap, easy to make healthy food? Sorry, but that takes a bit of effort and it's your responsibility. I am no health nut, however, it isn't that difficult to avoid an excess HFCS, saturated fats, or salt.

Also, the liver, kidney, and muscle tissue can metabolize fructose. Well, a fructose metabolite from the small intestine enters the kidney and muscle tissue (to get technical about it). The resulting metabolites enter glycolysis at specific stages and continues along the pathway yielding pyruvate.

EDIT: You just shot yourself in the foot by posting the metabolic pathway from substance you claim the body is not equipped to deal with.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

It's added to almost every overly processed junk food product. If that is the type of food you obtain the majority of your calories from, then that's a problem. Last time I checked, there was an entire area of the store dedicated to produce, a baking section, places for beans, rice, nuts, meats, spices, and other items one could use to do this crazy thing called cooking. What do you want, fast, cheap, easy to make healthy food? Sorry, but that takes a bit of effort and it's your responsibility. I no health nut, however, it isn't that difficult to avoid an excess HFCS, saturated fats, or salt.

Also, the liver, kidney, and muscle tissue can metabolize fructose. Well, a fructose metabolite from the small intestine enters the kidney and muscle tissue (to get technical about it). The resulting metabolites enter glycolysis at specific stages and continues along the pathway yielding pyruvate.

Want to try again?

\
Everything I've read requires the Liver to break it down first before any other tissue can deal with it. Want to provide a source that fructose is metabolized by the kindney and muscle tissue on its own?

The entire food industry is designed to sell processed food. American culture is based on fast food and easy food. The industry needs to be changed to make that kind of food healthier before we are all broke from the medical costs. I started changing my eating habits a year ago. I've made a real solid push with it in the last 2 months. Finding products that are HFCS free or low in sugar is bloody impossible. Bread for example, of the 14 brands at the super market only ONE is HFCS free and that only appeared on the shelves in the last 6 months. Regulating food producers is a easier answer to fixing the near 200 million sick people costing us a ton of money in North America then just saying oh people should eat better and leave it at that. The advice flies in the face of marketing and brain washing that is used to convince people to buy the bad food that's out there.

Just imagine the change if HFCS was banned, and Sucrose production was limited raising prices like it is in Europe. Producers would find ways to make products with less sugar. Heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes would start to lower. Bad food is going to bankrupt our society. This current generation alive right now is the first generation that is facing the real prospect of being out lived by their parents because of how drastically things have changed in the last 30 years.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Oh here it is, I hope you have a Library Card. I can provide more….

Fun!

http://www.fasebj.org/content/21/2/366.full.pdf Inhibition of the intestinal glucose transporter GLUT2 by flavonoids

Doesn't mention HFCS. Tries to block intake of both glucose and fructose. Doesn't distinguish between the two.

Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome Obesity - Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice[ast][ast]

"Conclusions: In the past, fructose was considered to be beneficial [over] glucose and complex carbohydrates. In light of the information presented here, a cautionary note is warranted."

This is not the alarmism you're looking for. All it's doing is reversing the enthusiasm for fructose over glucose that people had before. Furthermore:

"added fructose does not appear to be the optimal choice as a source of carbohydrate in the diet. Small amounts of added fructose are probably benign and may even have some favorable metabolic effects. However, consuming large quantities of fructose and the potential to exacerbate…, it is preferable to primarily consume dietary carbohydrates in the form of glucose."

This supports my counter argument: it's because we eat too much, not because we use the wrong sugar.

Lustig RH (2006). "Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics". Nature clinical practice. Endocrinology & metabolism PS this was the guy in the presentation I sent you from UC Berkley Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism | Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics | Article

This paper doesn't talk at all about fructose

Isganaitis E; Lustig RH (2005). "Fast food, central nervous system insulin resistance, and obesity" Fast Food, Central Nervous System Insulin Resistance, and Obesity

"There are few clinical trials evaluating the effects of fructose on weight gain in humans; several studies have demonstrated that excess fructose consumption contributes to weight gain over the short-term, but these have not controlled for calorie intake."

Jürgens H, Haass W, Castañeda TR, et al. (2005). "Consuming fructose-sweetened beverages increases body adiposity in mice Obesity - Consuming Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Body Adiposity in Mice[ast][ast]

Ad-lib access. Mice will over-eat more fructose than sucrose. No one is disputing that pure fructose doesn't make you "feel" as full as sucrose does. And no one expects mice to decide to stop eating before they "feel" full. Humans are held to a higher standard than mice, when it comes to will-power and self-awareness.

Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition" Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic p... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1989] - PubMed result

These subjects already have diabetes. What is it supposed to tell us about healthy people?

Wylie-Rosett, Judith; et al. (2004). "Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference?" Obesity - Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference?

"Soft drink consumption, for example, has increased 500% in the past 50 years, and soft drinks are now the leading source of added sugar in children's diets… In 2000, the intake of added sugars for the average American was 2.5 times that of the dietary guidelines, and almost one-half of the total came from high-fructose corn syrup"
Interesting. This also supports my explanation. Fat people eat too much sugar. (rodents too)

Seriously about this paper, the title makes it sound like exactly what we're looking for. The problem is, it doesn't actually answer the question posed in the title. It gives various conflicting views, the first (older, afaict) of which actually recommends fructose. Here is a good summary, from the last paragraph (bold mine):
"'Choose carbohydrates wisely' is the advice to be given to Americans in the upcoming 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but as shown in this paper, that is not simple advice. Nonstarchy vegetables and higher-fiber legumes are consistently advised, as is a reduction in added sugar."

It's not as simple as "fructose bad, sucrose good," moderation in all things, and (going back to) eating less sugar in general. This is what I've been saying.

Havel PJ (2001). "Peripheral signals conveying metabolic information to the brain: short-term and long-term regulation of food intake and energy homeostasis" Peripheral signals conveying metabolic information... [Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2001] - PubMed result

This is only about satiety. Not contested.

Dennison BA, Rockwell HL, Baker SL (1997). "Excess fruit juice consumption by preschool-aged children is associated with short stature and obesity" Excess fruit juice consumption by preschool-aged c... [Pediatrics. 1997] - PubMed result

This is specifically about natural fructose. Are you giving up on the HFCS angle? Many of the reviews you posted above recommend fruits. What's your position?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

BULLSHIT, it proved exactly what I was saying, your the only who didn't read the study and misread and mis-interpreted pictures...

No, I'm right. You're the one who said that you can't make heads or tails of the actual data, while I'm the one who reads papers like this all day for a living. Look don't take my word for it, just look at the press release you linked to in the first place:
"Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet."