HFCS v.s. Sucrose

"Studies Show No Meaningful Difference Between High Fructose Corn Syrup And Sucrose"


http://www.foodingredientsonline.com/article.mvc/Studies-Show-No-Meaningful-Difference-Between-0001?sectionCode=News&templateCode=EnhancedStandard&user=1245134&source=nl:31049

Of course, the source of that report is "The Corn Refiners Association"

That being said, sucrose is 50% fructose and HFCS is only 55% fructose. I've long believed that the whole debate has been blown way out of proportion. People keep focusing on how "bad" HFCS is, when the easiest solution would be just to EAT LESS SUGAR.

Puppy wrote:Of course, the source of that report is "The Corn Refiners Association"

Yes, they are the source of the news report on the research but there is no indication in the article that they supported the research.

I've got a friend who has sworn off HFCS but uses honey -- which is even higher in fructose.
She says the problem with HFCS is "the additional processing" and claims digestive issues with any foods with HFCS.

I'm with the folks above: the problem with HFCS is the culture of using it in everything, not the stuff itself.

Puppy wrote:Of course, the source of that report is "The Corn Refiners Association"

That being said, sucrose is 50% fructose and HFCS is only 55% fructose. I've long believed that the whole debate has been blown way out of proportion. People keep focusing on how "bad" HFCS is, when the easiest solution would be just to EAT LESS SUGAR.

A quick google search of the individual who undertook that study, Dr. James Rippe of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute, definitely raises some serious questions regarding bias in his research. Dr. Rippe has partnered with several of the biggest corporations in the food and corn industry, including ConAgra and Quaker Foods and admits so on his website.
http://www.rippehealth.com/rippelifesty ... grams.html

There is certainly a great deal of controversy regarding HFCS and what sort of health effects it may have in the human population, but I personally am disinclined to take Dr. Rippe and his research at face value as a result of his close association with these businesses. There is certainly reason why that association should warrant a healthy amount of skepticism as scientific research should not be beholden to personal interests of any kind, regardless of how much money may be behind it.

I don't think LTH current supports Hulu embed, but I found the linked video pretty amusing (may have been previously posted hereabouts, but I could not find it):

SNL Corn Syrup Spot

Matt wrote:I don't think LTH current supports Hulu embed, but I found the linked video pretty amusing (may have been previously posted hereabouts, but I could not find it):

SNL Corn Syrup Spot

Nasim Pedrad's performance in that is infinitely rewatchable.

I'm actually inclined to believe the results, but:

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP VS. SUCROSE AND THEIR EFFECTS ON ENERGY REGULATING HORMONES: USING CREDIBLE SCIENCE TO CORRECT MISPERCEPTIONS – AN EMOTIONAL DEBATE

CLIENT: Quaker / Tropicana

I remain skeptical of the hypothesis that HFCS is that much worse for you than sugar. It's always struck me as more likely that the biggest health impact is in making sweets cheaper, rather than being intrinsically worse.

Sucrose = glucose + fructose
HFCS = glucose + fructose

Does that one added step of splitting the glucose & fructose molecules - which begins the moment the sugar is in contact with saliva - really have that big of an impact? How much healthier is that snickers bar if you suddenly replaced the HFCS with a simple syrup?

I agree with George-
sucrose from any source is identical to your body-
the problem is when you consume too much of it.

ppezalla wrote:

Puppy wrote:Of course, the source of that report is "The Corn Refiners Association"

Yes, they are the source of the news report on the research but there is no indication in the article that they supported the research.

His research has been funded by industry sources, including PepsiCo:

http://www.sugarshockblog.com/2006/04/d ... psico.html

Despite all that, I agree with most of the posters, HFCS is not inherently evil but the corrupt system that put it into the food supply is (that goes double for ethanol).

We could probably argue all day whether HFCS is or isn't bad for you. But I don't think there's any debate that it's a BAD thing that HFCS is hidden in so many manufactured, processed and fast foods that we consume quantities of HFCS we don't even know about.

One would expect HFCS in soda pop or ice cream. But it is often used where you'd least expect it. Things like cereals, breads, buns, processed meats and cheeses. Condiments like ketchup and salad dressings. Even things one might choose to be "healthy" like lite or reduced-fat dressings, 100-calorie snack packs and granola bars.

Fool me into thinking HFCS isn't bad for me, shame on me.

Fool me into eating a food positioned as a healthy choice when it's hiding HFCS, shame on the manufacturer.

But it is often used where you'd least expect it. Things like cereals, breads, buns, processed meats and cheeses. Condiments like ketchup and salad dressings.

I guess I don't understand. Heinz makes a ketchup without HFCS. It has sugar. Is that healthier? Cereals had sugar long before HFCS became popular.

I guess everyone knows that the government supports sugar prices way above world market prices, which is one (not the only) reason HFCS is used as a cheaper alternative.

I agree with the point that it's not HFCS. It's the excessive consumption of sweetners that's the problem.

rickster wrote:

But it is often used where you'd least expect it. Things like cereals, breads, buns, processed meats and cheeses. Condiments like ketchup and salad dressings.

I guess I don't understand. Heinz makes a ketchup without HFCS. It has sugar. Is that healthier? Cereals had sugar long before HFCS became popular.

I guess everyone knows that the government supports sugar prices way above world market prices, which is one (not the only) reason HFCS is used as a cheaper alternative.

I agree with the point that it's not HFCS. It's the excessive consumption of sweetners that's the problem.

I concur. I'd hardly call HFCS "hidden," it's merely substituting for cane sugar due to the complex price protections on domestic sugar that made HFCS commercially viable in the first place (and ADM and Cargill were strong advocates for price protection for the sugar growers). It's what drove candy-makers like Brachs out of Chicago into Mexico (where they could buy at world-market prices - often 1/3 of the fixed US price).

Kellogg's changing "Sugar Frosted Flakes" to "Frosted Flakes" didn't "hide" the sugar, it just de-emphasized it. That's essentially what's happened to all sorts of food products.

spinynorman99 wrote: His research has been funded by industry sources, including PepsiCo:

http://www.sugarshockblog.com/2006/04/d ... psico.html

Despite all that, I agree with most of the posters, HFCS is not inherently evil but the corrupt system that put it into the food supply is (that goes double for ethanol).

Yep, like I said, Rippe is clearly a shill for the food industry, and a rather unapologetic one at that. I'm a bit surprised that a board that is usually so unforgiving where shills are concerned is seemingly so blase about the biased, multi-billion dollar sources that are funding his research. I'm not ready to get out the pitchforks and storm the board rooms of the food industry where HFCS is concerned, but I'm sure not going to take their word for it that there is zero reason for skepticism over it either. Call me old fashioned, but I like my scientific research straight up, without any bias and strictly according to the scientific method. But when the research is funded by the likes of ConAgra, Tropicana, Pepsico, et al it undermines the argument that such research is truly undertaken in good faith.

I also agree that it is pretty shocking how much HFCS is in foods where one would never expect to find them, once one starts to read food labels with any regularity. These days it's in everything from Keebler Club Crackers (http://www.keebler.com/ServeImage.aspx? ... 08de783c15) to Wonder Bread (http://www.dietfacts.com/html/nutrition ... -10660.htm) and everything in between. Like it or not, the U.S. loves its processed foods, and HFCS is in nearly all of the processed convenience foods that have become a mainstay of many U.S. consumers diets.

Maybe it's the amount, because we're eating a lot of processed foods? And when you take a food and process it so that it will be shelf stable, you have to do various things to it, and to make it tastier, you have to add a lot of salt and/or sugar, more than one would normally.

leek wrote:Maybe it's the amount, because we're eating a lot of processed foods? And when you take a food and process it so that it will be shelf stable, you have to do various things to it, and to make it tastier, you have to add a lot of salt and/or sugar, more than one would normally.

This is genuinely not a new thing. Sugar has always been present in prepared foods. HFCS replaced sugar for cost reasons, that's all. There's nothing nefarious about finding HFCS in prepared foods - a sweetener has always been there in one form or another.

Independent George wrote:I remain skeptical of the hypothesis that HFCS is that much worse for you than sugar. It's always struck me as more likely that the biggest health impact is in making sweets cheaper, rather than being intrinsically worse.

To my way of thinking, things that have HFCS are processed, and so are probably 1. less healthy, and 2. less tasty. I generally avoid food with ingredients I can't pronounce, and HFCS is *always* on those ingredient lists as well. Sugar is sugar, but if I'm going to eat it I'd rather have something from a bakery that uses sugar rather than a Twinkie or something like that.

How much sugar of all kinds that you consume isn't the only issue. The main issue with HCFS is that some forms of sugar (like HCFS) are metabolized more rapidly than other forms, resulting in a quick upward spike in blood sugar, followed by a quick drop. Good for a short-term energy boost; bad for your body's long-term ability to moderate blood sugar level. The spiking effect of a quickly metabolized sugar is mitigated to the extent that the sugar is ingested with other ingredients that lower the overall glycemic index of the food.

So where's the appropriate place on LTH to discuss nutrition?

Seems what I've seen it's a topic injected into other threads inside and around the edges. Like this thread.

kenji wrote:So where's the appropriate place on LTH to discuss nutrition?

Seems what I've seen it's a topic injected into other threads inside and around the edges. Like this thread.

Not a bad idea. I'd be in favor of a section of the boards, a la "Shopping & Cooking" or "Something to Drink," being devoted to nutrition.

Interesting 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.

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/arch ... ml?section

riddlemay wrote:

kenji wrote:So where's the appropriate place on LTH to discuss nutrition?

Seems what I've seen it's a topic injected into other threads inside and around the edges. Like this thread.

Not a bad idea. I'd be in favor of a section of the boards, a la "Shopping & Cooking" or "Something to Drink," being devoted to nutrition.

I like the idea of a nutrition/health board. This site has traditionally been about food and one of my favorite threads has been the one on fasting.

A group of US senators has written to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) petition to allow food manufacturers to label high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as ‘corn sugar’.

I cannot comment intelligently on the question of nutrition value of HFCS vs. sugar.

What I can say is this:

My digestive system knows the difference. In a big way. An explosive way.

Sadly, even with the current term, most wait staff don't know the difference between sugar and HFCS. Because of my desire to avoid the ah, uncomfortable situation, caused by HFCS, such restaurants don't sell me much house-brewed root beer or pre-sweetened ice tea.

Oddly, McDonalds, of all places, sweetens their sweet tea with sugar.

-jbn