Princeton University find that Corn Syrup = Obesity.

[nettybetty]

Not sure where to put this, it's Science and News, so if it's in the wrong spot, feel free to relocate!

Interesting new study about the evils of Corn Syrup when fed to rats. I've read a few bits of literature (including "In Defence of Food", highly recommended btw) which argue it's not fat so much that's the problem but sugar....

Here's the link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm

I haven't checked out the paper yet, I've got too many on my desk atm to deal with!!

And a response from the Corn Refiners Association of the USA:
http://www.corn.org/princeton-hfcs-study-errors.html
Nice to see their lack of referencing when they make claims about sugars and other claims in their rebuttal (sarcasm intended).

My opinion: There were lots of anecdotal reports about the ills of corn syrup, so this isn't surprising. I think half the problem is the high amount of processed crap Western diets contain, and the fact that maybe our body isn't designed to cope with synthetic food. Furthermore is the problem of breaking food into it's nutritional parts, when it has been demonstrated that whole fresh food is needed for maximum benefit, not processed synthetic versions of real food. I think people need to pay more attention to what they are eating - bring on the good food movement and awareness of what we stick in our mouths each day and where it comes from!

[Dan Gleibitz]

I've read a few bits of literature (including "In Defence of Food", highly recommended btw) which argue it's not fat so much that's the problem but sugar....

This is really interesting: "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."

Sugars ain't sugars?

[Dan Gleibitz]

I'm surprised Al Qaeda hasn't given up bombing and gone into agribusiness.

See Jamie Kilstein?
http://tinyurl.com/yg5z3xx

Warning: Language.

[Seamus]

This is really interesting: "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."

Sugars ain't sugars?
Fascinating if true.

I was diagnosed as having Type 2 diabetes August last year. I dutifully attended the diabetes clinic for many hours for information on how to manage the condition.

We were taught all sugars are potentially bad as the body covers them into glucose quickly,(as it does all simple carbs) which the diabetic's pancreas can't handle.

We were taught to avoid ALL processed sugar; cane,corn and beet,as well as most fruit juices.(but especially orange,apple, pineapple and grape) and simple carbohydrates generally.


I can't quite get my head around the claim that weight increased at a greater rate than other subjects with the same caloric intake. (I assume all other factors were also equal,such as activity) The claims seems to contradict basic science about food and the way the body converts food to glucose. My understanding is that simple carbohydrates are not stored as fat,but immediately converted to glucose.

Yeah, fascinating;I'd like to learn more.

[Dan Gleibitz]

I can't quite get my head around the claim that weight increased at a greater rate than other subjects with the same caloric intake.
Hoping one of the local biologists will step in and shed some light.

As I understand it, when you read the calorie/kilojoule measures on food packets, these are not direct measures of the calorie/kilojoule content. Rather, the manufacturers adjust them on the basis of 'available energy' or some-such, assuming that a certain amount of the 'energy' (apologies if my terminology is off) is able to enter the body and a certain amount becomes waste.

So if my understanding is correct, I wonder whether:
The study uses this 'available energy' and therefore shows that assumptions about the equivalence of this sugar vs other sugars is wrong.
or
The study uses 'total energy' in which case it would not be unexpected that different ingredients with the same total kj give different outcomes.
or
The study adjusts for any differences by measuring the actual respiration, and therefore shows that something else is going on in the bodies that consume the corn syrup. I mean, there are certain diseases and disorders that we know can cause weight gain or loss, right?

I need somebody smart to explain what it all means.

Just please don't tell me they put corn fructose in beer.

* Heads to fridge to read label... Psht!.. glug, glug, glug. *

[kencooke]

Looked at this a while back after this report (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/2104024.htm) on Radio National Health Report

Apparently High Fructose Corn Syrup is used in the USA as a cheaper substitute for cane sugar. In Australia, Cane sugar (aka sucrose, aka ordinary table sugar) is more commonly used since here it is cheaper than corn sugar. However cane sugar and HFCS are essentially the same. Both Sucrose and HFCS contain about 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The reason for converting Low Fructose Corn Syrup (mostly glucose) into HFCS is that fructose tastes about twice as sweet as glucose.

So if you are worried about HFCS (and I think you should be) then you should be no less worried about cane sugar or sucrose.

[Made Of Stars]

Corn syrup = obesity?

Well duh!

I lived in the US until recently, and once listened to a show on PBS radio about fuel ethanol and the 'terrible' impact on corn prices. I found myself shouting at the radio "Well stop putting fucking corn syrup in all the food!" Seriously, in the US it's in bloody everything. Supermarket bread, for example, is incredibly sweet because they put corn syrup in it. Bloody ridiculous.

As to the difference between sugars: Sugars differ in the rate at which they enter the bloodstream from the gut. Some enter the bloodstream more quickly, and the pancreas reacts by dumping more insulin, more quickly, into the blood to get rid of the sugar (insulin signals your peripheral tissues to store the glucose inside your cells as glycogen). In the case of type 2 diabetes, more insulin means your pancreas burns out more quickly, and your diabetes can deteriorate more quickly.

Sugars that have a slower profile don't elicit as rapid a response from the pancreas. That's why a diabetes educator will emphasise eating slower release 'low GI' carbs.

More here: http://www.glycemicindex.com/

[kencooke]

Fascinating if true.



I can't quite get my head around the claim that weight increased at a greater rate than other subjects with the same caloric intake. (I assume all other factors were also equal,such as activity) The claims seems to contradict basic science about food and the way the body converts food to glucose. My understanding is that simple carbohydrates are not stored as fat,but immediately converted to glucose.

Yeah, fascinating;I'd like to learn more.

I believe that the reasons are to do with the fact that the sugar called fructose is metabolised by the liver along a different metabolic pathway than glucose and that the insulin/glucose control mechanism is bypassed. Fructose also has similar "toxic" affects on the liver as alcohol.

In my work I have noticed a very large increase in the number of people who have "fatty liver". It used to be 30 years ago that the most common cause for fatty liver was alcohol with diabetes coming second. Now I believe that high fructose intake (and that includes high sucrose or common cane sugar intake since it is 50% fructose) is probably the main cause for fatty liver.

The ABC piece that I linked to in previous post I think explains it quite well.

[Seamus]

@Ken

Thank you for you post. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

It's largely academic for me,but any new information may help me manage my type 2 diabetes better.

I already avoid processed sugar and all other processed food as much as possible. I have a sweet tooth,so use 'splenda'. I also avoid some fruits especially high in fructose,such as bananas, grapes and pine apple. NO fruit juice. Amazing what you learn if you actually read labels. (especially if you look up the codes)

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Here's the link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm



In other news, water is wet!

Quite honestly no disrespect to the OP, but I thought it was long established that HFCS was just about the worst type of carbohydrate to imbibe.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

I first learnt about it after reading Fast Food Nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food_nation

[smartymarty66]

Atleastthis study confirms and replicates other studies. i had read somewhere that corn syrup was being used extensively in the US as the onlyway to get cheap sugar was from Cuba and they were trying to reduce the USA's relience on this. This could be anti US propaganda though.

[nettybetty]

In other news, water is wet!

Quite honestly no disrespect to the OP, but I thought it was long established that HFCS was just about the worst type of carbohydrate to imbibe.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

I first learnt about it after reading Fast Food Nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food_nation

I also have heard about the evils of Corn Syrup, though I think the idea behind this study was to demonstrate the link through experimentation, as most of the previous evidence is anecdotal or full of other variables that can be used as an 'alternative explanation'.