This Is Your Brain On Sugar: Study in Rats Shows High-Fructose Diet Sabotages Learning, Memory

[Richard D]

Attention, college students cramming between midterms and finals: Binging on soda and sweets for as little as six weeks may make you stupid.

A new UCLA rat study is the first to show how a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning -- and how omega-3 fatty acids can counteract the disruption. The peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology publishes the findings in its May 15 edition.

"Our findings illustrate that what you eat affects how you think," said Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of integrative biology and physiology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science. "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515150938.htm

[jeff47]

1. Someday, anti-HFCS people will learn HFCS isn't fructose.

Corn syrup is 100% glucose.

High fructose corn syrup is roughly 50% glucose, 50% fructose. There's several blends available, but they're all close to 50/50.

Studies using 100% fructose don't tell you a damn thing about HFCS, because you are missing the glucose and there's lots of mechanisms that trigger on glucose and not fructose.

Studies that do not use sucrose (aka table sugar, aka 50% glucose, 50% fructose) as a control don't tell you a damn thing about HFCS. All you're measuring is the effects of some kind of sugar. Not specifically HFCS. You have no way to know if the bad you measured is from HFCS, or if sucrose would cause the same problem.

But these studies are great for generating buzz for your lab and thus funding. As an added bonus, cutting out the proper controls saves a bunch of money, since you only need half as many subjects.

[rog]

2. Just for my information ...

... are you PRO-HFCS? Is your position that HFCS has no negative health effects?

Just asking - thanks in advance.

.rog.

[jeff47]

3. I'm pro-science. I'm neutral on HFCS.

Haven't seen any studies with proper controls that shows HFCS is bad.

I've seen plenty saying 100% fructose is bad. I've also seen plenty that say lots of sugar is bad.

Haven't seen any comparing lots of sucrose and lots of HFCS, and all the studies that get splashed around the Internet omit that control. Since it is such an obvious control, it is an omission that gives me pause about the anti-HFCS crowd.

Not saying sucrose and HFCS are the same, since they aren't - the fructose in HFCS is artificially created, so half of the fructose is a slightly different shape than natural fructose. That half could cause the whole mix to be processed differently. Or it could turn out that the oxygen bond between the glucose and fructose in sucrose is somehow critical. But both of those have yet to be demonstrated.

And if HFCS does cause problems, I'd like to know. Though I expect the major change would be lots of farmers would grow sugar beets in place of corn.

[rog]

6. Is this the study you're looking for?

Yes, this is the Princeton Study. Virtually all of the objections I've heard to this study come from "experts" associated with the food/sugar industry in some capacity. But this study seems to address all your concerns, stated in previous posts.

PDF of the complete paper:
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf

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

.rog.

[jeff47]

8. No, there's some problems with their conclusions

I'm aware of the study. But it's got some problems.

In the first experiment, the 1st group (24 h/day HFCS) gained the least weight. See table 1 (Within the MoE with the sucrose group). They spend an awful lot of time talking about groups 2 and 3, but they ignored group 1 in their prose.

So if HFCS is worse than sucrose, how come the group with constant HFCS exposure didn't gain the most weight? They'd drink the most HFCS. But the authors don't discuss group 1 in their results. But the real problem is in the discussion section, which we'll get to in a minute.

In the second experiment, they lack a sucrose control. Which is what I was complaining about.

The third experiment shows the opposite results from the first experiment: 24-h HFCS gained the most weight. There is no mention that this is the opposite result, much less a hypothesis as to why.

The real problem is in the first paragraph of the discussion section - the only part where they actually discuss their results instead of the implications of the results.

First, they claim the 24h HFCS rats in experiment 1 gained the most weight. This directly contradicts their results - they gained the least weight.

Second, they claim that in both experiments 2 and 3, HFCS rats gained more weight than sucrose rats. But there were no sucrose rats in experiment 2.

So...Why does their discussion directly contradict their own results? Why did the editor for this journal not notice these glaring errors? Is this a journal that publishes any paper instead of sending them out for peer review? How are we supposed to draw any conclusions from this paper, when they get one set of results and then ignore them so they can discuss as if they got a different result?

If I was supervising their research, I'd send 'em back into the lab to keep working on it.

[rog]

9. How could I guess ...

... that a "pro-science" guy would have a problem with a scientific study at Princeton. Seriously, I saw this coming before I asked my first question. Very predictable, and you came through with flying colors. Nice going.

If I was supervising their research, I'd send 'em back into the lab to keep working on it.

It's very fortunate that you're not (nor will you ever be) in that position.

Nice talking with you.

Very truly yours,

.rog.

[jeff47]

11. If I told you the sky was blue

If I told you the sky was blue, and then spent a lot of time talking about the implications of the green sky, you think that would be just fine?

It's a study. It's not well done, as I covered. And I'm using their own words, not trying to pull in some industry bullshit. Mostly because I'm not in the industry, so I have no industry bullshit to pull in.

As for my overall position, I'll quote myself from the other sub-thread:

The health issues are caused by the massive quantities of sugar we consume. Not HFCS. Replace HFCS with sucrose, and you'll get the same results. We need to convince people to eat less sugar, not to think that eliminating HFCS is a magic way to health. Otherwise we're just creating another useless fad diet (No carbs and you'll be thin! No, all carbs and you'll be thin! Just drink this shake twice a day! No, eat 6 times a day! No, drink ice water!)

[intaglio]

5. There are mistakes in what you say

First, correctly, untreated corn syrup can be largely glucose ... but that that doesn't tell you what you need to know.

HFCS is produced from corn starch, by processing with various enzymes and fermentations which produces glucose and fructose in various concentrations. Importantly the mixture contains both D- and L- forms of sugar. L or levo-rotatory sugars are easily digestible, D or Dextro-rotatory sugars are not.

HFCS comes from the vats in 2 grades; HFCS 42 (42% fructose) and HFCS 90 (90% Fructose). Other grades are made by mixing those 2 types. The most commonly used mixed grade is HFCS 55. Why is it used? Because fructose rates 173 in relative sweetness against Sucrose's 100, thus less bulk HFCS 55 is needed to provide the same sweetness as sucrose. Glucose only rates about 75. Note HFCS 42 rates the same as sucrose.

The problem comes with fructose malabsorbtion http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fructose-intolerance/AN01574 (which is sometimes confused with hereditary fructose intolerance) and additionally the problems with digestion of D- form sugars. Fructose is associated with gout, insulin intolerance, weight gain, IBS and other dietary problems.

[jeff47]

7. First, I already covered that fructose in HFCS is different

Second, you copy exactly the same errors I talk about above.

Fructose is associated with gout, insulin intolerance, weight gain, IBS and other dietary problems.

Such studies used 100% fructose. Hey look! It's lacking the control I was talking about.

[intaglio]

10. Didn't see your subsequent posts as I didn't refresh whilst reseaching my own post

Now ...

"Associated" is not the same as caused, it means that there is some evidence that the item in question produces the effect but there is no definitive proof that these effects are always caused by the agent studied. However there is sufficient evidence for there to be greater or lesser causes for concern. In the case of HFCS the evidence, so far, is that there should be great cause for concern in relation to insulin intolerance and IBS especially in relation to the known problem of fructose malabsorbtion, a common flaw in digestion which can be easily diagnosed. My opinion (note the word) is that the racemic mix of sugars in HFCS may make malabsorbtion more even common than thought.

Secondly I did not copy the errors you talked about, I merely identified areas that are causes for concern, including one you chose (for some reason) to ignore. I see no malice in what you have done but it does come across as the sort of denialism supported by the HFCS industry.

[jeff47]

12. The problem with 100% fructose

is that there's no glucose. And our bodies react much more to glucose and glucose level in our blood.

In the case of HFCS the evidence, so far, is that there should be great cause for concern in relation to insulin intolerance and IBS especially in relation to the known problem of fructose malabsorbtion, a common flaw in digestion which can be easily diagnosed.

And here's where you repeat the error. Let me lead you through this.

What happens when someone with "fructose malabsorbtion" eats sucrose?

Since nobody's determined that there's a digestive difference between left-handed and right-handed fructose, the answer should be "the same thing as when they eat HFCS".

The health issues are caused by the massive quantities of sugar we consume. Not HFCS. Replace HFCS with sucrose, and you'll get the same results. We need to convince people to eat less sugar, not to think that eliminating HFCS is a magic way to health. Otherwise we're just creating another useless fad diet (No carbs and you'll be thin! No, all carbs and you'll be thin! Just drink this shake twice a day! No, eat 6 times a day! No, drink ice water!)

[intaglio]

13. Why do you need a lesson in digestion?

If there is fructose malabsorbtion then the fructose is not completely absorbed by the intestine, however sucrase tends to convert sucrose to glucose and L-fructose as are most sugars produced by plants. Unfortunately the absorbtion of D-fructose is considered to be slower as the pathways through the intestinal wall show preference for L- sugars because that is what they evolved to deal with. Thus HFCS's will tend to exacerbate the malabsorbtion problems. Metabolism is not the problem absorbtion is - nice try though.

You may not remember but D- sugars were marketed back in the 80's/early 90's as "low calorie sweeteners". Unfortunately they were largely withdrawn due to problems with flatulence and IBS as well as not actually being low calorie.

[jeff47]

14. The claims of health damage are not based on absorption rate.

The claims of danger from HFCS are in it's metabolism. A slow absorption rate would reduce it's metabolism and thus we'd have fewer problems with HFCS than other sugars.

Also, how come flatulence and IBS aren't reported with HFCS use? Still got D-fructose in it. Yes, some people claim it, but some people claim damn near anything causes their IBS.

Again, my point is the crusade against HFCS is a bad idea. It should be a crusade against sugar. 'Cause if the crusade against HFCS wins, we'll just switch to sucrose and still have the same problems with obesity, diabetes, etc.

About the only positive is it would probably make it easier to kill off corn subsidies.

[intaglio]

15. Bait and switch

The last post was about one specific problem, which I answered, and now you change the game.

Absorbtion does not affect the metabolism, just the quantities available to metabolise.

Next,

Also, how come flatulence and IBS aren't reported with HFCS use? Still got D-fructose in it. Yes, some people claim it ...

contradicting yourself within 10 words and then blaming the people who report it. You ignore my original link to the Mayo clinic - but then you would do as it does not fit your narrative. Here it is again and I'll quote the last paragraph http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fructose-intolerance/AN01574

Fructose malabsorption. People with fructose malabsorption have difficulty digesting fructose. This is a less serious disorder because it doesn't result in liver or kidney damage. But it can cause abdominal pain, gas, bloating and diarrhea.

(oops, just realised I've used UK not US spelling)

Now, you may well be against all added sugars and if you are I am happy to agree with you but your first post did read like those of a "big food" lobbyist. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[NV Whino]

4. So if rats eat high fructose yogurt

They'll be stupid with big balls?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002690422