High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats 542
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.'"
Queue . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1 . . . .
Question to Americans (Score:0, Insightful)
So, how's that unregulated capitalism thing working out for you ?
Its the subsidies that are the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed.
Don't forget correlation is not causation! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:From the institute of Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Its the subsidies that are the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, government subsidies that make corn cheaper are only half the problem; they're just making the corn syrup cheap.
Government price supports for sugar are the other half -- trade barriers that stop us from importing cheap sugar from places like brazil that would love to sell it to us make sugar expensive.
Re:Question to Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
FOOLS! Drink the refreshing beverage . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . that nature INTENDED you to drink.
Coffee.
give me more of that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:HFC (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that high fructose corn syrup is actually a mixture of fructose and glucose, right? The ratio varies depending on the type of HFCS; many of them are around 50-50 (the two most common are 55% fructose and 42% fructose (HFCS-55 and HFCS-42, respectively). And you know what sucrose breaks down into in the stomach? A 50:50 glucose/fructose mixture.
Its this that makes it somewhat of a stretch to find what could cause a difference (a number of studies find no difference between the two). One theory is that the imbalance between fructose and sucrose, however small, makes the difference. Another is that HFCS doesn't require acid hydrolysis in the stomach, and this somehow affects the results. Another is that people will eat more sweet food when sweetened with HFCS instead of sucrose, although that's questionable and is notwhat this particular study is talking about. But really, the overall evidence is doubtful. The AMA says that it's "unlikely" that HFCS contributes more to obesity than sucrose does.
Re:Don't forget correlation is not causation! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks, I came in here looking for some idiot to post that overused phrase. Now I'm happy to find out that the only post to mention it so far was satire.
Can We All Agree..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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'.
Re:Queue . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
water switching... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Queue . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If you eat foods that only use it as a sweeter, your hunger will still be regulated and prevent you from over-eating. For example, you wouldn't eat a 24-oz steak, I hope, because you would be quite full long before you could finish). On the other hand, most people seem to have a bout as easy time drinking an 8 oz can of soda as a 24oz bottle, even though the 24-oz is 3 times larger.
The same goes for candy, if you replace if with bread, you have no hope of eating as many calories (and that's saying a lot because most people are capable of eating quite a lot of bread).
Use common sense, you don't need to cut high-fructose corn syrup out of you diet completely to dramatically reduce your consumption of it. Simply avoid eating foods where the majority of the calories come from high-fructose corn syrup and you body will take care of the rest.
Re:Queue . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's just the corn industry. The corn belt [wikipedia.org] states are stupidly influential, and have managed to maintain sugar tariffs and corn subsidies. If you can get real sugar, it would be much more expensive to use than corn syrup.
Nobody else seems to care. It directly benefits a lot of states, and the image of the Great American Small Family Farm has persisted in the popular imagination since we told the British where to stick their import taxes. If people are even aware of the subsidies, they're not seen as "handouts to big Agribusiness", but help to the mostly non-existent poor struggling farmers.
Most other businesses are still considered "evil." Not sure why agriculture gets a free pass.
Note, I don't mean to be insulting by this, I'm genuinely interested...
Thanks for minding our delicate nationalist sensibilities. Brittle people like me appreciate it.
Re:In humans too... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Actual paper does not support that conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Queue . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. Move to a city where there's Whole Foods markets nearby (they're nationwide, so it shouldn't be too hard). They have a dizzying selection of good food, and I don't think there's a single product in the whole store with HFCS in it. They also have their own house brand, "365", which is fairly reasonably priced. The 365-brand ketchup is better-tasting than any Heinz/Hunts/etc, and uses sugar instead of HFCS, and only costs $3 per bottle I think.
I went on a HFCS-free diet a while ago because I was gaining weight after enjoying teens and 20s without any weight problems despite a terrible diet, and quickly lost 25 pounds. I'm not sure if it was just the HFCS, or the fact that I tried to avoid all trans-fats, however.
HFCS is evil stuff, and should be banned. So should trans fats. Doing this would save our nation billions in health care costs, by making people healthier.
Re:Queue . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
You have sugar in bread? That's crazy, and I had to check I wasn't missing a joke [bakeryandsnacks.com]. That article says someone is selling bread with aspartame in the USA.
Copied from the factory-produced cheap British bread's label: "Ingredients: wheat flour, water, wheatgerm, yeast, wheat fibre, fermented wheat flour, salt, calcium carbonate, soya flour, wheat protein, vegetable fibre, emulsifier (E472e), vegetable fat, ascorbic acid". The more expensive one has similar ingredients. I'm actually surprised there's so many ingredients -- but of course the "traditional" bread doesn't keep very long, and this does. (The supermarkets sell both kinds.)
Instead of tomato ketchup why not just eat a tomato? Although I'm still not sure why you ate baked potato with fries. That's two servings of carbohydrate and nothing else! Anyway, over here we call them jacket potatoes [studentcook.co.uk], and the most popular filling is baked beans and cheese -- note baked beans usually contain sugar
(That's actual sugar, which according to the British "Sugar Bureau" is actually good for you: complete bollocks here [sugar-bureau.co.uk], and here [sugar-bureau.co.uk], where they recommend eating jam and 'regular' soft drinks. Seriously! Diet advice: "Have up to three snacks a day and choose fruit or low fat types of biscuits, confectionery or buns such as iced buns, currant buns or scones.").
Re:Queue . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I rarely put a sauce of any sort on my steaks, and I primarily use either Best Foods mayo (preferably with olive oil, as I find it just a little bit tastier than the already tasty normal mayo) or various spicy mustard types on hot dogs, sandwiches, and burgers, and neither of those condiments have HFCS in them (Best Foods specifically lists "sugar" as an ingredient, not HFCS). I find that ketchup and BBQ sauces often mask the much better natural flavors of the meat. There are times when a good BBQ sauce is appropriate, and it enhances the flavor of the meat, but all too often I see people using the food as a carrier of sauce, instead of using the sauce as a subtle addition to the food.
Re:Skepticical: Study Results are inconclusive (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:HFC (Score:3, Insightful)
Has anyone actually tested this (surely there must be some way to make clean glucose and fructose and compare their impact to commercial HFCS.
Re:HFC (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is...HFCS is in fucking everything..
Just try to find something as simple as a loaf of bread, or salad dressing without HFCS in it.
When I started reading labels, trying to cut carbs on the few processed foodstuff I do buy...I was amazed to find how pervasive that shit is in everything out there...
Re:HFC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's all about the fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fruit juice != fruit. Drinking a tall glass of orange juice is the equivalent of eating 6~8 oranges, but without the fibers. Your liver treats the massive sugar dump much differently than eating the equivalent # of [fruit].
The FDA wants to toss fruit juices into the same category of "bad" drinks as sugar laden sodas.
Exactly true, and yet millions of (nutritionally) uneducated mothers and/or fathers insist that their children drink plenty of juice (most of which is probably only 10% real fruit juice to begin with), instead of soda... because it's "healthy".
/. before), the title of which appealed to desire to be more of a man than I saw in the mirror at the time. The price of the book was less than a night at the local watering hole, so I went for it. When it arrived, first I thumbed through it. There was a lot of *common sense* stuff in there that just hadn't occurred to me before. So, I went back and READ it. Many an a-ha moment. Then I went back again and applied it. Now, at the risk of sounding like a braggart, I'm one of the most fit guys in the office. People are constantly asking for, and then either disregarding or outright refuting my advice. The result is, they're still fat, and I'm still not.
I won't go off on my usual rant about the terrible food pyramid we've been brainwashed with since the 60s ("eat a shitload of bread, but NO FATS!"), but the bigger problem I'm seeing every day is just an utter ignorance about what people put into their body, or an unwillingness to try something different.
"It says LEAN Cuisine on the box! That means I'll lose weight by eating it."
My dad taught me something when I was younger, probably without even meaning to... if you can't pronounce all the ingredients, you shouldn't eat it. Of course, as a kid, I ignored that advice and just ate whatever tasted good. My mother did her best, but she grew up in an Italian household, which means a lot of pasta and other starches. When she went back to work, the fridge was filled with microwaveable "food", that I could nuke whenever I thought I was hungry. Guess who was a fat kid who sucked at sports, couldn't keep up with friends when there was running, biking, climbing, or jumping was involved? Guess who grew up to be a fat adult who tried all the same shit (pills, "diet" meals, "magic" exercise apparatus, etc.) as many other fat people, with the same results... still fat.
It took a combination of a rough period in my life, combined with pure dumb luck... I was really low and, rather than drown myself in booze, I decided that I'd had enough, and that it was time to work on me. I got an email from a major men's magazine, offering a 30-day free trial of a book (which I've shilled on
Bottom line is, there's no magic pill, there's no silver bullet, there's really no secret. Back in the caveman days, right up to a half century ago, you almost had to try to get fat. Now, the food manufacturers (think about that phrase for a moment) are pumping chemicals into their products to make them taste better, cheaper. When I was a kid, McDonald's was a once-in-a-while treat. Now it's considered by many to be a viable option for all three major meals. People get in their car and drive to the store a block away. Hell, I see parents put their kids in the van and drive TO THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY to wait for the bus. People would rather wait in their car for 20 minutes in the Dunkin' Donuts drive through than park, get out, and be in and out of the place in 2 minutes. Schools have dropped gym class to save money and make more time for standardized tests. My oldest son tells me they don't really
Re:HFC (Score:3, Insightful)