The Double Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup

[sparkofcreation 0]

You know, I was all anti-HFCS, and then I actually did some scientific research and found two very important facts that anti-HFCS people never mention:

1. The danger of HFCS is from the high amount of fructose. Every one of the effects cited in every anti-HFCS study are the effects of increasing the test subjects' consumption of fructose.

2. HFCS has the same percentage of fructose as regular cane sugar or beet sugar has (both HFCS and sucrose are 50% glucose, 50% fructose)), and obviously a much lower percentage than fruit does. Since fruit has 100% fructose.

And derived from those facts, #3: No one has ever done any study comparing the dangers of HFCS to sucrose, only to regular corn syrup, which is nearly all glucose.

In other words, I'm not saying you shouldn't limit your consumption of HFCS, but there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it's any worse for you than regular sugar.

Edited July 7, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[Marc and Olga 0]

Asteroids

We had one the size of the Empire State Building whiz by the other day. I don't think anyone was worried though.

[tomica52 0]

interesting

[Elizabethnhenry 0]

You know, I was all anti-HFCS, and then I actually did some scientific research and found two very important facts that anti-HFCS people never mention:

1. The danger of HFCS is from the high amount of fructose. Every one of the effects cited in every anti-HFCS study are the effects of increasing the test subjects' consumption of fructose.

2. HFCS has the same percentage of fructose as regular cane sugar or beet sugar has (both HFCS and sucrose are 50% glucose, 50% fructose)), and obviously a much lower percentage than fruit does. Since fruit has 100% fructose.

And derived from those facts, #3: No one has ever done any study comparing the dangers of HFCS to sucrose, only to regular corn syrup, which is nearly all glucose.

In other words, I'm not saying you shouldn't limit your consumption of HFCS, but there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it's any worse for you than regular sugar.

Understood. JMHO, but I can't afford to wait for evidence. The way my body feels and reacts is all the evidence I need.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok so after reading this thread I decided to go and buy some HEALTHY food, nothing frozen OR containing HFCS!

So here is my list!

Corn (with husks)

Apples

Peaches (they smelled so good!)

Broccoli

carrots (organic) was $0.20 more for 1 pound.

2% milk (I cannot drink less (well 1% I can but NO SKIM!))

shredded wheat (not the frosted stuff!)

"natural" peanut butter

"natural" strawberry preserves

Whole wheat bread (from the bakery!)

I cannot think if I bought anything else at this time but I have to saw I was STUNNED when EVERY brand name of bread (even ones you would think wouldn't (the specialty sara lee breads even!)) had HFCS! Why the heck does bread need a sweetener?!?!?!

It appearently does!

all that for about $33

I also cleaned out my refrigerator and removed the evil HFCS from there, I was surprise that it was even in some cranberry drink I purchased some time ago!

hehe we shall see how long I can last without my dear friend HFCS (I love ketchup!)

I remember during my trip to Russia seeing Ketchup and thinking WOW EVEN Ketchup!

I bet theirs doesn't have HFCS!

Wow! You are way ahead of me as far as taking action. That's great. It is shocking when you look at the labels and see how much HFCS we consume. It's just like sodium. I never use table salt, but I have hypertension and I'm shocked at how much sodium is in most packaged foods. Shredded Wheat is one of the few cereals without any sodium.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know, I was all anti-HFCS, and then I actually did some scientific research and found two very important facts that anti-HFCS people never mention:

1. The danger of HFCS is from the high amount of fructose. Every one of the effects cited in every anti-HFCS study are the effects of increasing the test subjects' consumption of fructose.

2. HFCS has the same percentage of fructose as regular cane sugar or beet sugar has (both HFCS and sucrose are 50% glucose, 50% fructose)), and obviously a much lower percentage than fruit does. Since fruit has 100% fructose.

And derived from those facts, #3: No one has ever done any study comparing the dangers of HFCS to sucrose, only to regular corn syrup, which is nearly all glucose.

In other words, I'm not saying you shouldn't limit your consumption of HFCS, but there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it's any worse for you than regular sugar.

Understood. JMHO, but I can't afford to wait for evidence. The way my body feels and reacts is all the evidence I need.

From the original article...

Starch breaks down into glucose when digested. On a copper-deficient diet, the male rats showed some signs of copper deficiency, but not the gross abnormalities of vital organs that occur in rats on the sucrose diet. When the rats were fed fructose, the fatal organ abnormalities occured.

Lysl oxidase is a copper-dependent enzyme that participates in the formation of collagen and elastin. Fructose seems to interfere with copper metabolism to such an extent that collagen and elastin cannot form in growing animals—hence the hypertrophy of the heart and liver in young males. The females did not develop these abnormalities, but they resorbed their litters.1

These experiements should give us pause when we consider the great increase in the use of high fructose corn syrup during the past 30 years, particularly in soft drinks, fruit juices and other beverages aimed at growing children, children increasingly likely to be copper deficient as modern parents no longer serve liver to their families. (Liver is by far the best source of copper in human diets.)

-------

There's more there if you care to read it.

[Jaylen Brit 0]

If we take the point made by spark then we need only remember one thing: Sugar, be it HFCS, Fructose or glucose, is bad for you.

Your body needs only tiny amounts of it to function normally, same with salt - with salt its something like half a gram a day and most peope eat WAY more without even realising as its put into many foods for flavoring.

In Australia (and lately the UK but on a lesser scale) manufacturers have been forced, by public opinion and govt action, to reduce salt in all breakfast cereals and most people have not noticed ANY difference in taste. That's one thing I always liked about the Aussies - they put health and fitness as a highly desirable state. If you're a skinny model in Oz you won't get much work as they want healthy, toned fit people to advertise their products - thin, bony and pale doesn't cut it.

If enough consumers in the US demanded less sugars and salts in their products then manufacturers would HAVE to act - or they will lose business (and money/profit) and the only way to change things is to hit them in their pockets.

It worked in Aus, its working in the UK, and I have no doubt that it would work in the US as well.

[lisaf 0]

Interesting read.

I was always tired as a teenager, eventually found out that I had food sensitivities to just about everything. My worst were food additives, colours and CORN!!!. Interestingly corn allergy is on the rise in the USA due to its overuse. Its really hard to cut out of the diet also, corn syrup is also used as a thickener and is in everything that comes in a can or a packet. However thank god for my allergies! For the ladies speaking about weight, due to my restricted diet ( basically no junk, dairy or yeast) my weight hasn't changed in 20 years. Living in Asia for the last 14 years made it easy too.

I hear you wogboy! When I got to the USA everything made me sick, until I stopped being seduced by pretty packets and went back to my regular way of eating. Luckily my SO is a fitnesss freak and we both eat the same. Only he doesn't have to pass on the Ben and Jerry's... dammit.

Edited July 7, 2006 by lisaf

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If we take the point made by spark then we need only remember one thing: Sugar, be it HFCS, Fructose or glucose, is bad for you.

Your body needs only tiny amounts of it to function normally, same with salt - with salt its something like half a gram a day and most peope eat WAY more without even realising as its put into many foods for flavoring.

In Australia (and lately the UK but on a lesser scale) manufacturers have been forced, by public opinion and govt action, to reduce salt in all breakfast cereals and most people have not noticed ANY difference in taste. That's one thing I always liked about the Aussies - they put health and fitness as a highly desirable state. If you're a skinny model in Oz you won't get much work as they want healthy, toned fit people to advertise their products - thin, bony and pale doesn't cut it.

If enough consumers in the US demanded less sugars and salts in their products then manufacturers would HAVE to act - or they will lose business (and money/profit) and the only way to change things is to hit them in their pockets.

It worked in Aus, its working in the UK, and I have no doubt that it would work in the US as well.

Right on. No point in splitting hairs over sugar. Fruit juice is seen as healthy. It has all the sugar and none of the fiber of real fruit. One glass of juice can equal several servings. People are better off drinking a glass water and eating an apple (or 2).

[Identity 0]

Blame the Industrial revolution and then free market economics for bringing all of us from a more natural way of living.

Even when you think you're making more healthy options, e.g. a salad at your local Steak 'n Shake, the salad 'greens' are actually nutritionally void iceberg lettuce, and then it's covered with fatty dressing.

[gimygirl 0]

Even when you think you're making more healthy options, e.g. a salad at your local Steak 'n Shake, the salad 'greens' are actually nutritionally void iceberg lettuce, and then it's covered with fatty dressing.

he's got a point, gang!! McDonald's Crispy Bacon Ranch Salad has more fat and calories and just as much cholesterol as a Big Mac.

(source)

[Jaylen Brit 0]

If you choose salad at mcD's then don't have one with bacon, have chicken, and don't have ANY dressings, or choose olive oil (which contains 'good fats' ) and use sparingly. And don't use croutons - the bread is just oiled up white bread, fried - yeuch.

Its not rocket science.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Jaylen Brit

[Fischkoepfin 1]

McDonald's also adds sugar to almost anything, making their food doubly bad.

I'm sort of late to this thread, but thanks for posting it. Stopped eating anything containing HFCS about 2 months ago (well actually during my sojourn in Germany), and while it is a pain in the behind, it has been a positive experience overall. Shopping takes of course twice as long because I have to read the labels even more carefully.

As to juice being bad for you, that depends on the kind of juice and whether it is 100% juice or some concoction trying to pass itself of as juice. Best example is the Cranberry section, most stuff is sugary..,

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Blame the Industrial revolution and then free market economics for bringing all of us from a more natural way of living.

\

"The Age of Refined Bread

As early as 1826, the whole grain bread used by the military was called superior for health to the white, refined bread used by the aristocracy. In fact, the term refined today comes from this fact.

Before the industrial revolution, it was more labor consuming (and therefore costly) to refine bread, so white bread was the main staple for aristocracy. This made them “refined”.

20th Century

* In 1910, Americans were eating 210 pounds of wheat flour every year. The commercial bread-slicing machine was invented in 1912 by Otto Rohwedder, and unveiled in 1928.

* The 1930s saw the United States pursue a diet enrichment program to begin fortifying breads with vitamins and minerals after their discovery in the late 1920s.

* In 1941, calcium was added to help prevent rickets, observed in many female recruits to the military.

* In 1956, it became the law to enrich all refined breads.

* By 1971 consumption of white bread had dropped to around 110 pounds per year, but by 1997 (possibly due in part to the low fat, high carbohydrate craze and the food pyramid) consumption was up to 150 pounds – still 60 pounds shy of the fit, trim Americans at the turn of the century."

[hockeygal 0]

2. HFCS has the same percentage of fructose as regular cane sugar or beet sugar has (both HFCS and sucrose are 50% glucose, 50% fructose)), and obviously a much lower percentage than fruit does. Since fruit has 100% fructose.

A lower percentage in terms of ratios. Do you get as big a dose though? That almost makes it sound like eating a piece of fruit is worse than having something with HFCS.

My rule of thumb is to stay away from processed food. Fresh fruits, fresh veggies, fresh proteins. If you limit the packaged stuff and white rice and bread, I think you are doing just fine.