In Worries About Sweeteners, Think of All Sugars

[groovedaddy]

Are you worried about high-fructose corn syrup in your diet?

If you answered yes, you’re not alone. Today, about 55 percent of Americans list the infamous corn sweetener among their food-safety worries, right behind mad cow disease and mercury in seafood, according to the consumer research firm NPD Group.

As a result, food makers are reworking decades-old recipes, eliminating the corn syrup used to sweeten foods like ketchup and crackers, and replacing it with beet or cane sugar. To counter the backlash, the Corn Refiners Association last week suggested changing the name of the ingredient to “corn sugar,” hoping a new moniker would help rebuild the product’s image.

But most nutrition scientists say that consumer anxiety about the sweetener is misdirected. Only about half of the added sugar in the American diet comes from corn sources. All added sugars, they say, including those from sugar cane and beets, are cause for concern. Today, sugar calories now account for 16 percent of the calories Americans consume, a 50 percent increase from the 1970s. High sugar consumption has been linked to obesity and other health concerns.

“I think consumers have been misled into thinking that high-fructose corn syrup is particularly harmful,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “Chemically it’s essentially the same as sugar. The bottom line is we should be consuming a lot less of both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/in-worries-about-sweeteners-think-of-all-sugars/?th&emc=th

[trotsky]

1. Ms. Parker-Pope is *obviously* a shill for Monsanto and Big Corn!

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

2. Too much of any sugar is bad, but HFCS is used by the food industry way too much.

It's cheap and destructive.

[Scout]

3. a kind DUer on another thread posted the glycemic index of cane sugar and HFCS

and the latter was 2 or 3 times higher than the former....

if they are the same, how can this be?

[trotsky]

4. That kind DUer was in error.

HFCS actually has a *lower* glycemic index, for two reasons:

1) Pound for pound, it's sweeter than sugar (sucrose). So overall less is used.
2) Fructose (fruit sugar) has a lower glycemic index than glucose. Sugar is immediately broken down by the body into a 50-50 mixture of these. HFCS is roughly 55% fructose, 45% glucose, so that lowers its index overall.

[Scout]

5. link to your source please? n/t

[trotsky]

6. Both are basic science facts, equivalent to claiming lead is denser than aluminum.

However the facts on fructose are available on its Wiki page.

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

The primary reason that fructose is used commercially in foods and beverages, besides its low cost, is its high relative sweetness. It is the sweetest of all naturally occurring carbohydrates.

...

Fructose has the lowest Glycaemic Index (G.I. = 19) of all the natural sugars and may be used in moderation by Diabetics.

[Scout]

7. a REAL source, not a wiki link to fructose....

you know, a source that determines the glycemic indices of many different foods, as their profession.

[trotsky]

9. I don't think you're understanding the basic facts here.

Fructose has a much lower glycemic index than glucose. This is a fact, because of the different way these two sugars are metabolized. (And also why it's not a good idea to consume straight fructose.)

Sucrose is a disaccharide of these two sugar molecules. It is immediately broken down into the two, in a 50-50 ratio, when consumed.

HFCS, as most commonly found in food products, is roughly 55% fructose, 45% glucose. I.e., the ratio of fructose to glucose is slightly greater in HFCS than sucrose. (It's coincidentally about the same ratio found in honey.)

Since fructose has a lower glycemic index than glucose, it's simple math. So rather than run off on a link hunt for you, please present any facts that dispute the above. Thanks.

[Scout]

10. so you can't answer my question

what is the glycemic index of HFCS?

pretty basic, simple question you should be able to answer.

ETA, i understand the basic facts just fine. i also understand that you can't answer a simple question.

[trotsky]

13. No, you clearly DON'T understand the basic facts.

Otherwise you would realize I already disproved your initial assertion on this thread (which you couldn't even provide a link for). You're shifting goalposts now.

Anyway, most GI charts are geared toward providing values for *foods*. The same sugar can have a different GI value depending on the food it is in. HOWEVER since you're obviously hoping that unless I can somehow kick out numbers for you, then everything I've said is invalid, here you go:

http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/glycemic.html
Looks to be some kind of bodybuilding site, people who are hyper-infatuated with everything going in their bodies. At any rate, I'm sure you'll find some way to dismiss it and continue to demand something else.

Scroll down to "SUGARS"
High fructose corn syrup 89
Sucrose 92

[Scout]

17. hahahaha! was that so hard? all you had to do was answer a simple question,

yet you went on and on, trying to make me look bad and stupid, and yourself oh so reasonable and intelligent.

i did no shifting of goalposts and i made no assertions. i stated what another DUer had told me, and asked a question ... my question always was what is the glycemic index of HFCS.

you're the one who went off on a nut rather than simply answering the question i asked ... took you what, 4 posts to do so??

now, what is the glycemic load of HFCS vs. sucrose?

[evirus]

16. Wikipedia is a go between, not the final word in credible sourceing

you see those little numbers in brackets usually near the end of sentence on Wikipedia? the correspond to the references at the bottom of the site. instead of badmouthing someone for linking to wikipedia, perhaps you could have went to the site and checked out the relevant references.

[Scout]

18. perhaps they could have simply answered the question, and linked to their own

source directly.

where did i badmouth anyone? if i did so, the proper action is to report it to admin.

perhaps you shouldn't think so much of yourself :hi:

[HuckleB]

8. According to this site, white sugar has a slightly higher glycemic index than HFCS.

http://www.fitsugar.com/Glycemic-Index-Where-Do-Sweeteners-Fall-3031565

[Scout]

11. sorry "FitSugar" is hardly an unbiased source n/t

[HuckleB]

12. So you're saying they made the numbers up?

:shrug:

Then please prove your original assertion via a completely uncompromised source.

[Scout]

19. i have no assertions to prove

i have asked questions, not made assertions.

[HuckleB]

21. See post number three.

Prove your claim from that post.

[Scout]

22. i made no claims or assertions, i asked a question.

learn to read please, here is my entire post:

a kind DUer on another thread posted the glycemic index of cane sugar and HFCS

and the latter was 2 or 3 times higher than the former....

if they are the same, how can this be?

[HuckleB]

23. So your "point" is that you have no point, and, in truth, no actual question.

(Remember, your "question" evolved out of an assertion that you never proved -- blaming it on another DUer does not work, since you are the one reposting the supposed information. Because of that, your question is actually not a question at all, since the question derived from a baseless, unproven assertion.)

If you actually had a question, you would have shown your curiosity by looking the answer up yourself, and/or by responding to the information given to you in a manner that showed curiosity rather than a demand that others "prove" something to you, or offer "REAL links."

Clearly you wanted to spread misinformation, and when others corrected that misinformation you chose to play BS games at length.

Sorry, but your excuses aren't working.

[Scout]

26. i'm not making any excuses, and i'm not shifting the goal posts.

gosh, i thought i was DISCUSSING on a DISCUSSION board ... ask a simple question, and you'll get a bunch of bullshit i guess :shrug:

[HuckleB]

27. No, you really haven't been discussing anything.

[mzteris]

14. "HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose

"HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose, made by an enzymatic process from glucose syrup from corn. The most common forms are HFCS-42 and HFCS-55, which contain 42% fructose (and 58% glucose) or 55% (and 45% glucose). Table sugar (sucrose) has 50% fructose (and 50% glucose) and so is very similar to HFCS.

. . . fructose is up to twice as sweet as sucrose, and sweeter than HFCS. This means less fructose can be used to achieve the same level of sweetness. Consequently fewer calories are consumed from foods of similar sweetness where fructose replaces sucrose or HFCS.

Unlike table sugar or HFCS, fructose does not cause a rapid rise and subsequent large fall in blood glucose levels, which means it has a low glycemic load or glycemic index (GI). Glycemic index (glycemic load per gram carbohydrate) is a measure of how carbohydrates affect blood glucose concentrations. As expected, glucose itself has a high value because it is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream; its GI or glycemic load per gram is 100. In contrast, the glycemic load per gram fructose is only 19, while that of table sugar is 65 – midway between its component parts glucose and fructose. HFCS has a similar GI value to table sugar, though its precise value depends on the fructose content of the HFCS that is used.

The name “high fructose corn syrup” is used because HFCS has a higher content of fructose compared to “regular” corn syrup, yet it contains a substantial amount of glucose and may be more glucose than fructose. HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) usually contain similar amounts of glucose and fructose.

HFCS is obtainable mainly in two forms:

* HFCS 55 contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose. It is commonly used in soft drinks, and is very similar in sweetness to table sugar.
* HFCS 42 contains 42% fructose and 58% glucose. It is commonly used in canned fruits, ice cream, desserts and other sweetened processed foods.

Although HFCS and fructose are often confused as being the same, they are not interchangeable as the two sweeteners are quite distinct. There is also a difference between table sugar and HFCS, though this appears to be of little consequence. It is that the glucose and fructose in table sugar are linked chemically and so table sugar needs digesting before absorption can occur. This digestive process occurs very rapidly for sucrose and so there is no significant difference in the overall rate of absorption. Because both table sugar and HFCS are absorbed into the blood stream as glucose and fructose, their subsequent metabolism is identical.


-more -

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/sweeteners-and-lite/fructose

[mzteris]

15. Studies being done

Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010 Feb 26.
High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels.
Bocarsly ME, Powell ES, Avena NM, Hoebel BG.
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA; Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
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 (8weeks) on (1) 12h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24h/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 7months, 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.

**********

Nutrition. 2010 May 13.
Fructose and metabolic diseases: New findings, new questions.
Tappy L, Lê KA, Tran C, Paquot N.
Department of Physiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Service of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract

There has been much concern regarding the role of dietary fructose in the development of metabolic diseases. This concern arises from the continuous increase in fructose (and total added caloric sweeteners consumption) in recent decades, and from the increased use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a sweetener. A large body of evidence shows that a high-fructose diet leads to the development of obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia in rodents. In humans, fructose has long been known to increase plasma triglyceride concentrations. In addition, when ingested in large amounts as part of a hypercaloric diet, it can cause hepatic insulin resistance, increased total and visceral fat mass, and accumulation of ectopic fat in the liver and skeletal muscle. These early effects may be instrumental in causing, in the long run, the development of the metabolic syndrome. There is however only limited evidence that fructose per se, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects. Several effects of a high-fructose diet in humans can be observed with high-fat or high-glucose diets as well, suggesting that an excess caloric intake may be the main factor involved in the development of the metabolic syndrome. The major source of fructose in our diet is with sweetened beverages (and with other products in which caloric sweeteners have been added). The progressive replacement of sucrose by HFCS is however unlikely to be directly involved in the epidemy of metabolic disease, because HFCS appears to have basically the same metabolic effects as sucrose. Consumption of sweetened beverages is however clearly associated with excess calorie intake, and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases through an increase in body weight. This has led to the recommendation to limit the daily intake of sugar calories.

*******

Curr Hypertens Rep. 2010 Apr;12(2):105-12.
The role of high-fructose corn syrup in metabolic syndrome and hypertension.

Ferder L, Ferder MD, Inserra F.

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Ponce School of Medicine, 395 Zona Industrial Reparada 2, Ponce, PR 00716-2348, USA. [e-mail]
Abstract

Obesity and related diseases are an important and growing health concern in the United States and around the world. Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are now the primary sources of added sugars in Americans' diets. The metabolic syndrome is a cluster of common pathologies, including abdominal obesity linked to an excess of visceral fat, fatty liver, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Trends in all of these alterations are related to the consumption of dietary fructose and the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a sweetener in soft drinks and other foods. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests a progressive association between HFCS consumption, obesity, and the other injury processes. However, experimental HFCS consumption seems to produce some of the changes associated with metabolic syndrome even without increasing the body weight. Metabolic damage associated with HFCS probably is not limited to obesity-pathway mechanisms.

**********

J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1269S-1270S. Epub 2009 Apr 15.
The state of the science on dietary sweeteners containing fructose: summary and issues to be resolved.

Murphy SP.

Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA. [e-mail]
Abstract

This article highlights the discussion of the issues that had been raised during the International Life Sciences Institute North America- and USDA Agricultural Research Service-sponsored workshop surrounding the consumption of fructose. One conclusion of the discussion was that the metabolic effects of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and sucrose appear to be similar in humans. However, there have been few studies directly comparing the effects of fructose to other caloric sweeteners, such as glucose, HFCS, and sucrose. Differential effects may include those related to insulin sensitivity, triglyceride and lipoprotein levels, and glycated protein levels. Further exploration of the differences between nutritive sweeteners should be the basis of a research agenda. Studies should also further investigate factors that might affect the results, such as the amount and form of the sweetener consumed, the macronutrient composition of the basal diet, the length of the study, and the characteristics of the subjects. Meanwhile, health professionals could help consumers by providing simple messages, such as the importance of consuming lower levels of energy, including those from all caloric sweeteners.

********

This is an oldie - from 1989
Effects of high-fructose (90%) corn syrup on plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and normal subjects.
Hung CT.
Abstract

Interest in sweetening agents is encouraging manufacturers and researchers to find a safe substance to maintain the life quality of diabetics. The popularity of sweetened food items has increased recently in Taiwan. The glycemic index of fructose has been reported to be 20%, much lower than most carbohydrate foods. A high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has come onto the market of sweetening agents and has been proposed as a low-cost substitute for fructose in dietetic management of diabetes. The aim of this study was to compare the glycemic effects of HFCS and glucose to see if there is a place for high-fructose corn syrup in diabetic management. In 8 normal and 21 non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) subjects, we performed oral tolerance tests. After an overnight fast, the subjects were given either 75g of glucose or an equivalent amount of HFCS containing 75g of carbohydrate. Blood was sampled before and at 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 minutes after the glucose load. Blood glucose was analyzed by the glucose oxidase method using YSI 23 A (Yellow-Springs Intrument). The insulin and C-peptide were measured by RIA kits from Daiichi. The area under the curves (AUC) was calculated for plasma glucose, immunoreactive insulin (IRI) and immunoreactive C-peptide (IRCP). The results showed that the glycemic effect of HFCS was 73% of glucose. The AUC of IRI after HFCS was 56% of that of glucose. The AUC of IRCP after HFCS was 57% of that of glucose. The high glycemic index of HFCS in our study does not support the use of HFCS as a substitute for fructose.

[Scout]

20. my my my, will wonders never cease! n/t

[mzteris]

24. which wonders?

Of course now *I* wonder . . .

what they heck you're talking about. :crazy:

[Scout]

25. that HFCS is not the same as table sugar in its effects on the body.

and there are studies being done that demonstrate this....

what did YOU think your studies were pointing out?

[mzteris]

28. I just had no idea

what your comment meant!