Slashdot Mirror
High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats
krou writes "In an experiment conducted by a Princeton University team, '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.' Long-term consumption also 'led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.' Psychology professor Bart Hoebel commented that 'When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight.'"
That is because HFC is absorbed by the body in the same way that beer and alcohol is. In the liver. HFC also suppresses the satiety (hunger) signal so people tend to eat more.
Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1 . . . .
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
HFCS is bad, but not NEARLY as bad as Crystalline Fructose, which makes an appearance in beverages like Vitamin Water. Do some google searching on it...it's much harder to break down in your liver than HFCS.
http://www.thefitshack.com/2007/03/28/what-is-crystalline-fructose/ for some examples.
Living With a Nerd
Well, that isn't going to matter as long as Iowa and the corn farmers have the political power that they do.
If there is one good thing about the new "Obamacare" bill, it's that unhealthy things will cost the government money. The downside is they will now have one more reason to regulate.
Problem solved.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Stop giving our tax money to farmers to over-grow corn and lower the price to the point where corn syrup is cheaper then sugar. Problem solved.
This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So soft drinks and sweet foods are worse for you in the USA than other places where they are more likely to be sweetened with cane or beet sugar? Did the sugar cane industry have anything to do with the research?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Arstechnica.com covered this same study the other day. Their writeup is better than mine would be so why don't you read their article? http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars
The abridged version of the abridged version is that this study does not conclusively prove much of anything.
It is not enough to succeed, others must fail. - Gore Vidal
What, no "correlation is not causation" tag? I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.
It's pretty much common knowledge that cheaper substitute ingredients are almost always unhealthy.
I distrust "common knowledge, especially this bit. Bear in mind that if you find a case where the cheaper alternative is more healthy, people would pretty much go with it and you'd never think about it as it's a no-brainer. The trouble with that is that it tends to bias your perception, as you've shown and can easily keep you from examining a new option because it is cheaper. (In fact, this has been found to be the case: people won't buy products they think are too low in price even when the quality is as good or better. I wish I had my source handy for that.)
Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup, but over the past several months have begun phasing in a sucrose/dextrose blend. I've actually begun switching from Powerade to Gatorade because of this, even though it's 15% or so more expensive.
Good question! Regulated capitalism (in the forms of import quotas on sugar and subsidies on corn) are why HCF is used instead of sugar.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Does anybody know of research that compares this to regular corn syrup (i.e., that which has not been "treated" to convert some of the glucose into fructose to bring the sweetness to table-sugar levels)? I'm just curious if it's corn syrup in general or if there's something peculiar to HFCS.
In any case, I think people need to realize that neither table sugar nor HFCS is "good"--they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature, and they are purely empty Calories. Avoid them both and eat whole foods as much as you can--and, of course, get some exercise. (If only you could put that into the US healthcare bill!)
R.Mo
Clark: Where's Eddie? He usually eats these goddamn things.
Catherine: Not recently, Clark. He read that squirrels were high in cholesterol.
Blog,Twitter
Yeah, I know you're snarking, but seriously, healthy rat meat would have a lot more nutritional value than the caloric equivalent of soda pop.
As for rats raised on high fructose corn syrup, they actually have nice marbled flesh. Fries up real good, and smells like cola on the grill.
. . . that nature INTENDED you to drink.
Coffee.
Cane sugar is far more efficient to produce than corn sweetener but is primarily produced in tropical and subtropical regions outside of the United States . The agribusiness lobby in in the United States pays off politicians to restrict imports, driving up the price of sugar within the the U.S. to above that of corn syrup. Without import restrictions on sugar, all those products you buy which are sweetened with corn syrup would be sweetened with sugar instead. And cost less.
You can blame the agribusiness lobby and the protectionist whores in the U.S. congress for this situation. It is a clear-cut case of government power expended to benefit he corrupt few at the expense of the many.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
All fructose is processed by the liver in the same way as alcohol. That includes fruit juice.
All this changes in the presence of fiber. If you eat a piece of fresh fruit, the fiber in the fruit changes the way the fructose from the fruit is absorbed so it's not such a huge shock to the liver.
The bottom line is that if you eat carbohydrates, you should make sure it's with plenty of fiber. In other words, eat pieces of fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, just as nutritionists have been telling us for years. On food labels, I look for a % USRDA of fiber greater than or equal to the % USRDA of carbohydates, or grams of fiber at least 1/10 the grams of carbohydrate. It makes you feel more full with less food and prevents the sugar rush and crash from your liver absorbing the carbs too quickly.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yep, I can see that commercial too.
Soft focus. Sunrise. Dew on the stalks. A ladybug rouses from slumber. Woman in her natural beauty walks barefoot through soft rows. A newborn baby is cradled in the arms of a woman who has, I promise you, never given birth.
The cutline/voiceover -- "Corn syrup. Made from nature. As natural as Hollywood breasts."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
That, from now on, posting that crap about 'Calories in vs. Calories out' is an offense punishable by death.
I've got a list of medical studies that show *what* you eat has a dramatic affect on your body composition; even when the calories are the same.
And yet - I still hear it....all the time....'Calories in vs. Calories out'.
I'm more in the "let's all get our caloric intake to a reasonable level before we start bothering with this kind of diatary micromanagement" camp.
It's not an insightful "Duh". While it's not totally new, this is one of the first long term studies comparing consumption of different forms of sugar. The study showed there's a distinct difference between consuming equal amounts of sucrose from sugarcane and fructose from corn. Even the rats that were fed twice as much sucrose didn't gain weight like the rats being fed fructose.
Can we please, for fucks sake, end corn subsidies and terminate sugarcane tarrifs? Soda tasted better when actual sugar was in it anyway.
I'm sick of corn. Everything we eat has corn in it. Corn corn corn corn corn. Iowa and Nebraska farmers could learn to grow something else.
Brown sugar is just the second (or third) extraction in sugar processing. It's still sugar, with molasses in it. Granulated sugar is not bleached, it's the first pass, pure extracted sugar from the processing of sugarcane or sugar beets.
Honey is concentrated bee barf. Tasty, but gross.
Really you're going to split hairs on this? Are you a long distance runner? I'm guessing no, so just drink water. It's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time. It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.
I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose). There's no real difference.
If you had the article, you'd know that this isn't true.
ketosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolution
all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off
it forces your body to manufacture ketones from fat, and use that to power the krebs cycle (where you get your energy from), and to go into gluconogenesis (sugar from proteins)
eat ALL YOU WANT: eggs and bacon, butter on everything, fish, chicken, cheese, nuts. eat fistfuls of macadamia nuts all day. even hard liquor (no sugar). but absolutely NO sugar or carbs, no rice, no bread, no milk, nothing sweet or starchy at all, period
you won't be hungry, but the monotony of the diet will leave you hating fat and protein, and just the thought of popcorn will turn you into a craven vampire
so what you do is carb cycle: you give yourself a break, say on weekends, where you get to pig out on sweets. trust me: ketosis during the week will more than make up for your indulging on weekends. it will also take you out of danger from the vague stresses you are putting on your body (see negatives below)
funny thing: i felt more lethargic, but slept with less quality, when eating carbs again. this diet, for whatever its worth, really makes you realize that high carb diets are not what homo sapiens is optimized for. our biochemistry has not yet caught up with our recent (evolutionarily speaking) agricultural revolution
i also have tinnitus, and i noticed that without sugar, the ringing in my ears was lessened, then, when i ate sugar, it came roaring back. they also use the ketosis diet to control people prone to seizures, so high ketones and no sugar seems to have a neurological impact. i would be interested in a study showing if the kind of inflammation which is alzheimer's is due to high carb diets: that's wild ass speculation on my part. i did read of a woman who put her alzheimer's husband on a ketosis diet of palm oil, and his symptoms got better (google it). again: THIS IS WILD ASS CONJECTURE, but a potentially interesting line of thought, the connection between carbs and inflammation in various disease systems
drink tons of coffee, it seems to help with hunger. but it has to be BLACK: no sugar, no milk. also drink a lot of pepsi max/ coke zero: the sweetener in those is actually a tiny protein. drink gallons of the stuff, it will fill your stomach
important: get your vitamins. since you're not getting many veggies (low carb veggies like broccoli and lettuce is pretty much ok, but you're missing out on wonderful foods like blueberries with this diet), you need supplements
negatives:
ketosis makes your blood slightly acidic (its not ketoacidosis, that's far worse, like with anorexics, who don't eat at all), which means you will be leaching calcium and magnesium, and stressing your kidneys and weakening your bones (this is all happening on a minor basis, relax). take calcium citrate supplements. paradoxically, eating more calcium will help you avoid kidney stones (the most common kind of kidney stone is caused by oxalate, and calcium inhibits oxalate absorption from the intestines), and the citrate helps in ketosis for... some reason i forgot. potassium and magnesium citrate supplements are good to, i forgot exactly why
your breath will stink: you're exhaling acetone through your lungs while in ketosis. but remember, chicks don't like fat guys, and your diet is not permanent, so just avoid breathing on chicks for awhile while on your diet
if these negatives scare you, think about the diabetes and heart disease you are giving yourself with your carb addiction: far more dangerous than a temporary diet which will make you a healthy weight
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While it's not totally new, this is one of the first long term studies comparing consumption of different forms of sugar.
I believe the very first such experiment was where we split the world between Americans, who were given high fructose corn syrup, and everyone else, who continued to use sucrose. The results were pretty conclusive.
One thing seems for certain, Laboratory Rats are a miserable lot. They seem to be susceptible to cancer and just about everything else you can imagine. Why not test something really hardy instead? Why not politicians?
Rats are much better human analogs then politicians.
The data in the actual paper doesn't support the conclusion in the title of the Slashdot story.
Funny, I just checked Wikipedia and found out that here in Europe and in Asia cola is usually sweetened with "normal" table sugar (made from sugar beet/sugarcane). Only Americans seem to get the corn syrup stuff. I feel sorry for you guys, you invented the stuff and get the worst version.
That's great, and avoiding HFCS helps toward that goal (apparently) - HFCS blocks you from feeling full, so you eat more. If that's true and is really a big effect, then all that would be required to get caloric intakes to a reasonable level would be removing HFCS.
That's no longer micromanagement, but a single large change that could (partially) solve the overlying issue, which is consuming too many calories as you say.
Obesity is a bigger problem in the US than in most other places, and the US is also the place where it's basically impossible to avoid HFCS. Americans as a whole eat too much... correlation is not causation, but if it's shown that HFCS makes you feel less full so you eat more, then that *is* causation and is way beyond "micromanagement".
It has the same number of calories as Sugar. It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose). There's no real difference.
With carbohydrates, it's all in the timing--the slower they are delivered, the better. HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, which can be absorbed directly, so anything you consume goes directly into the bloodstream. Sucrose needs to be broken down first, and that can only happen at a limited rate.
Now, I don't know one way or the other about the validity or otherwise of this study. I'd just like to point out that Australians are now very close to your levels of obesity, and we use cane sugar.
Heh...
There's been a few other long-term studies that were done that were claimed "inconclusive" prior to this one. Most of them showed there was a serious problem with HFCS, but this one goes further to show that it's worse than many thought of the stuff.
If you're counting calories- it's identical. That's what the producers of HFCS would have you believe is all that matters.
The problem is that it isn't identical. Not even close.
The fructose is in an immediately available fashion to your body, which means it's absorbed on the spot, unlike sucrose which has to be cracked apart first. From there it lies in your blood stream until your liver can utilize it. Your liver absorbs and converts some of this fructose into it's roughly one day's store of glycogen. Once it has a day's worth of reserve, it starts converting the rest as it gets to it into triglycerides and fatty tissue within the liver (Look up "fatty liver disease" via Google...). While it's waiting to be converted the pancreas sees the sugar levels rise and tries to pull the sugar OUT of the blood stream by increasing insulin levels. Unfortunately, only glucose responds directly to the insulin part of your hormone system- fructose is largely processed by your liver and only your liver. This has the predictable effect of yanking the glucose out of your blood stream. At some threshold, the body detects problems caused by the sugars being ripped out of your system by that and starts producing glucagon which orders the liver to start converting the glycogen in it's store back into glucose. Over time, this swinging, the triglycerides, and the other stuff going on combine to provide leptin resistance and insulin resistance- which are the hallmark signs of Type 2 Diabetes, something we're supposedly having an "epidemic" of in the "Western" world.
And this doesn't even get into the traces of mercury and other chemicals you're exposed to when you eat HFCS as part of your diet.
In the end, while you do need Fructose, you don't need the quantities that the Western populace seem to consume, nor do you need or want it in the form that we're exposed to it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas