Let's put this new fructose study into perspective
A recently published study is going to fuel the hysteria over high-fructose corn syrup. It's a terrific study. But, contrary to the headlines you are sure to see over the next days and weeks, it does NOT prove that high fructose corn (HFCS) syrup is the cause of the obesity epidemic. Let's take a closer look.
Researchers at the University of Florida found that rats who were fed a diet that was very high in fructose eventually became resistant to the hormone leptin. Leptin is a hormone that regulates your appetite and disposition toward weight gain. In the second half of the study, they switched the leptin-resistant rats to a high-calorie (high-fat) diet. The rats ate a lot more and gained a lot more weight than rats who had not been on a high-fructose diet. (Read more about the study: "Fructose hampers hormone that controls appetite.")
Now, what does this tell us about the effects of high-fructose corn syrup on humans? Very little.
Aside from the obvious issue (the study was done in rats, not humans), the study had absolutely nothing to do with high fructose corn syrup. The diet that brought about leptin resistance was about 60% fructose, and contained no other form of sugar. The typical (awful) American diet contains about 35% sugar, about half of which (roughly 17%) is in the form of fructose.
Incidentally, if every bit of HFCS in the food supply was replaced by regular old cane sugar, our fructose intake would still be around 17%. That's because high fructose corn syrup contains about the same amount of fructose as sugar.
Like the best research studies, this one poses far more questions than it answers. For example, I'm dying to know whether you'd get the same results at 50% fructose. Or 40% or 30%. What's the threshold at which the effect starts to set in?
Secondly, I'd love to know whether you'd get leptin resistance with similar amounts of glucose or sucrose? In other words, how much of this effect is specific to fructose and how much is just sugar? What's more significant: the amount of total sugar in the diet or the amount of fructose? How does dietary fat affect things? (In the study, the rats ate an extremely low-fat (5%) diet and the fat was lard.)
I imagine that researchers are queueing up to design studies that will answer these questions and more. (And we're still only talking about rats...)
Those who read this blog (or listen to my podcast) know that I think the hysteria over high-fructose corn syrup is misplaced. We should be alarmed by the amount of sugar in the American diet and what it is doing to our health. I think it probably is directly connected to our rising rates of obesity, whether through leptin resistance or other means. But I don't think it's worth worrying about high-fructose corn syrup, per se, while we're still getting 35% of our calories as sugar.
This whole thing reminds me a little of people who are freaking out about gas prices and dependency on foreign oil. They're trading in their cars for models that will improve their gas mileage from 27 to 30 mpg. But it never occurs to them to drive fewer miles.
Here's what we all agree on
I am sure that large quantities of fructose will cause health problems in rats and humans. I'm pretty sure that large quantities of any form of sugar will do that. Of course, the specific problems that develop will vary depending on what type of sugar you're over-consuming. Fructose is hard on the liver while glucose is more challenging to the pancreas.
But rather than argue about which form is more dangerous, what about working the problem from the other end of the equation? I"m talking about the "large quantities" part of the sentence.
Eat less sugar and you probably don't need to worry about HFCS
The World Health Organization recommends that you limit your intake of added sugars to 10% of calories. They're not talking about sugars that are found naturally in whole foods, like fruit or milk. They're talking about refined sugars in things like candy, baked goods, soft drinks, and condiments.
For most Americans, this would mean cutting their sugar intake by two-thirds. Whether or not HFCS is really that much worse than other forms of sugar (I'm still not convinced it is), I'm pretty sure that if we simply cut our consumption to a reasonable level, it simply wouldn't matter.
Call me crazy.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Halloween Survival Guide | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Enjoying Indian Cuisine: Exotic spices with healing benefits |
Posted by: Trainer Fast | Dec 29, 2008 3:04:43 PM
I total agree with you, Monica. Lets spread the word on working on portion control and eating more of a varity of healthy foods. I'm guessing most people have a very small selection of health foods on their menu to choose from.
Posted by: Maha | Dec 1, 2008 2:14:21 PM
I'm late to this discussion, having just found this site/blog. I'm an average person trying to get my weight/bmi to a better place. What I'm getting out of the post is that nearly food in small, reasonable amounts is not going to harm the body over the long haul, if it's balanced with proper nutrition. I don't think the post is suggesting to freely eat whatever product contains HFCS, but be aware of it and limit it. In my opinion, each body is different and will manage food intake differently. Mine happens to metabolize and digest everything very slowly, where my husband could eat a cow and not gain an ounce. You always hear about people who eat horrible diets and live to be 100 vs. someone who takes care of themselves and keels over at 51 from a heart attack. I just find it hard to believe that a single food, derived from a plant, is going to singly cause all the bodily damage mentioned in several of the comments, unless you're eating it by the poundful. I think you have to look at genetics and other factors.
Posted by: seppi | Nov 17, 2008 5:42:50 PM
Monica, your HAD to choice is rather silly.
What does reduction of calories have to do with comparing consuming laboratory, unnatural levels of fructose to a more "natural" form of sugar?
Calories measure the amount of energy a substance gives off when burned. A terrible model that has been spread through society - our body doesn't have a burning furnace, there is a completely different thing going on.
Indeed your third choice is the only choice and thank goodness you at least agree to that but I'll take a more natural sucrose over HFCS any day (although I choose neither in my diet)
Posted by: Tim | Nov 10, 2008 12:26:56 PM
I have heard that HFCS in itself is harder to digest and worse for the body than other types of sugars, including refined sugars. Is this the case? I have been searching for answers and I have been avoiding HCFS whenever I can. I agree that everyone should watch their sugar intake, but isn't HCFS worse than other types of sugars? Thanks, Tim
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 7, 2008 10:04:36 PM
Wow, in two years of writing this blog, I can't think of another topic that has aroused this much heat.
Let me pose a hypothetical question.
If you HAD to choose, which do you think would do more good for public health?
1) Continuing to consume products using HFCS but reducing the consumption of added sugar to less than 10% of calories;
-or-
2) Eliminating all HFCS from the diet but continuing to eat 35% of calories in the form of sugar (say, sucrose).
Now, there's an obvious 3rd choice: Eliminate or drastically reduce ALL forms of refined sugar. And, if you've been paying attention, that's actually what I've been arguing all along.
But trying to choose the lesser of these two hypothetical evils might shed some light on the relative and practical importance of the issues involved here.
So, just for fun: What would you choose, if you had to?
Vote here: http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2008/11/between-a-rock.html
Posted by: WHYLIE WILLIAMS | Nov 4, 2008 10:30:26 PM
STAY AWAY FROM SUGAR NO MATTER WHAT FORM THE BEST YOU CAN.
Posted by: Laura | Nov 4, 2008 9:06:59 PM
My concern about HFCS and the reason that I am doing all I can to remove it from my diet, is that it is made from feed corn, not the sweet corn that we eat as a vegetable... It is also grown from the genetically modified seed that is named "monsanto-ready". This corn seed has been modified so that the crop can be sprayed DIRECTLY with monsanto's Round-Up plant killer without harm to the plant. So we are ingesting HCFS made from corn that has been sprayed with an herbicide designed to kill off all the weeds, but not kill the corn plant. I don't know about all of you, but I do not want to eat/drink foods filled with Round-Up contaminated foods. When Roundup is sprayed on plant foliage, it is absorbed and then moved — or translocated — throughout the plant’s tissues.
Since there has been some movement to genetically modify sugar cane also, I am choosing only organic sugar, and pre-pared foods using only organic sugars... and yes there are sodas available with organic cane sugar and no HFCS.
Technically the ads are vaguely correct, HFCS is made from corn, and in moderate use may be fine, but NOT if we are ingesting such a powerful herbicide without knowledge. This is why labeling of genetically modified foods is so important. Without disclosure we will have no idea what other chemicals the plants have been modified to handle without peril to the plant, but with possible, if not probable harm to ourselves.
Posted by: Jeff | Nov 4, 2008 4:30:58 PM
I will roll the dice with HFCS over sucralose or aspartame any day.
Posted by: Nikki | Nov 4, 2008 2:39:45 PM
Rats have an enzyme elongase that can convert ALA in flax to DHA and EPA (these are essential fatty acids). Humans do not have enough of this enzyme to convert it. I agree that lab rats are a scientific step but they DO NOT metalbolize nutrients the same as humans. Also, rats are a tad more active than humans, don't you think?
Posted by: Marissa | Nov 4, 2008 9:45:19 AM
I'm quite surprised by your response also. I think if you would take the time to really research HFCS and its effects you would find a different stance...
Posted by: miukat | Nov 3, 2008 5:37:02 PM
Hi. This is a really interesting and informative discussion. I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents. I am not a nutritionist, nor do I abide by any strict diet. Mostly I eat what I want, when I want. I do, however, take responsibility to read the nutrition labels and be aware of what I am eating. When I go shopping, I try to avoid overly processed foods as much as possible. HFCS poses a problem to me because it has become commonplace for many foods which tradionally do not have sweeteners in them to contain them now. Our palates have become way too accustomed to this high level of sweetness. Most people eat sugar and they don't even know it. As a former pastry chef, I would never cut sugar out my diet. I just keep them where I feel they belong, in my desserts, and eat them in moderation. HFCS does have have its place in my diet, such as when boiling sugar for syrup and candy (it helps prevent crystallization because it is an invert sugar.) Also, shoo fly pie, pecan pie and other specialty desserts benefit from these qualities. But in my beverages, sauces, chips and meals, NO THANKS!
Posted by: Anon | Nov 3, 2008 5:08:17 PM
What does Sarah Palin have to do with HFCS other than the fact that they're both bad for Americans?
Posted by: Nattalia Chevalier | Nov 3, 2008 4:16:48 PM
I just thought I'd mention that HFCS is sent directly to the liver instead of the intermediary breakdown steps that sucrose goes through. The liver's response is to generage new fat cells, which it then dumps into the bloodstream as triglycerides, causing fat gain. And, since HFCS is in practically every product that is processed, it is very challenging to keep it low unless one eats a diet mostly of whole fresh foods.
Posted by: Ana Naumoff | Nov 3, 2008 4:11:45 PM
Ditto for all that Clara said, and quite frankly, her comments are not the same as the writer's. HFCS might not "cause" obesity, but it has been linked several other health problems,specially in children. I agree that, ideally, one would choose to reduce the amount of sugar intake, but, whatever amount ingested, should NOT include any HFCS. Your article leads the reader to believe that if they eat a little of it, it won't hurt them. The truth is, it will. For anyone who chooses to have some sugar, here and there, it is best to teach them how to choose the kind that won't be as bad for them.
Comparing HFCS to cane sugar is appalling, specially when coming from a nutritionist. There is plenty of literature and studies published that prove it otherwise. One should do your homework.
What's next Nutrition Data? Saying that a little bit of partially hydrogenated fat is not so bad??? Oh please... give me a break.
Posted by: 2FatCMe | Nov 3, 2008 3:35:18 PM
I attended a seminar a few months ago where a researcher with a PhD in nutrition stated that the studies that they were doing on HFCS showed accelerated apoptosis of the pancreatic beta cells, that HFCS is hard on the liver, and that it does not cross the blood-brain barrier. I AM convinced that this is a dangerous chemical that could hasten the onset of diabetes. If we purchase products with HFCS, we approve of its presence in our food. Remember, Americans ate trans fats in the form of margarine for over 40 years before it was considered dangerous.
Posted by: seppi | Nov 3, 2008 3:03:46 PM
HFCS comes in several varieties with as much as 90% fructose to glucose although the most common used in food products is HFCS 55 with 55% fructose.
Some other facts that seem to always be missing from HFCS support is:
- NOTHING in nature contains sugar composition of fructose near 55%
- 100% of all HFCS is created using laboratory created GMO (genetically modified organism) enzymes
Essentially HFCS is NOT the same as Fructose from a while food and is not recognized as the same in the body.
All refined sugar is bad but lets at least stick to what is closer to what nature provides so the body can deal with it.
Atkins4Life you may be on to something.
Posted by: tkf | Nov 3, 2008 2:50:48 PM
Certainly much more research into HFCS in our diets needs to be completed. Because HFCS is apparently less expensive than other forms of sweeteners, it makes it an attractive choice for manufacturers (No, I don't work for one.) In our country we have a penchant for the sweet - thus the reason it is added to so many items. I'm sure if we all stopped buying those items, they would go away. If a 64 ounce sugar/HFCS beverage cost way more than it does now we'd reduce our consumption. If manuafactuers go to a more expensive soure of sweeteners, the price will go up. Until we stop consuming what is produced, there is no motivation for food manufacturers to use less HFCS or to change sources of sweeteners.
I'm not as opposed to HFCS as many, but I'm a believer that we don't need the extra sweeteners in our diets that most of us get (self included). If we were much more moderate in intake, I'm guessing HFCS wouldn't be the consumer issue it is. Maybe it's our way to feel good about the obesity epidemic. It isn't our fault...there is just too much HFCS in the foods we eat.
Posted by: marian DeSimone | Nov 3, 2008 2:43:51 PM
It was 13 year ago when my daughter started having severe behavior issues. After much trial and error, the culprit was found..high fructose corn syrup. We called it the "angry food".. We took it out of the entire families diet.. 13 years later we are all fit, healthy and very happy. I refuse to purchase anything made with HFCS and to portray this as a "natural substance" is one of the biggest con jobs I've seen in a long time. It's all about the economics of cheap sweetners to feed America's voracious appetite for suger.
Posted by: Atkins4Life | Oct 25, 2008 3:39:14 PM
Maybe not crazy, just trying to placate the conventional mindset that funds your website. I think we're all now seeing the deceptions you're publishing.
Be like Sarah Palin, start speaking reality, not what your "party" tells you to!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/10/how-high-fructose-corn-syrup-damages-your-body.aspx YES HFCS is BAD!
Posted by: The Reluctant Eater | Oct 24, 2008 2:38:06 AM
I agree that the bigger problem with HFCS is its usage: worthless calories that can be inserted into just about any food because it's cheaper that way!
I did some research last night, and it is fascinating to see the HUGE spike in people googling "high fructose corn syrup" ever since those commercials hit our TVs. My analysis is here: http://www.thereluctanteater.com/2008/10/proof-sweet-surprise-high-fructose-corn.html
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Oct 23, 2008 10:18:12 AM
Clara,
It surprises me that you feel my "points are unsubstantiated" when my post essentially makes the same points as your comment. Maybe take a deep breath and read it again?
Posted by: O | Oct 23, 2008 2:39:06 AM
Sorry Jon, I didn't want to elaborate on my points since this was a post about HFCS. Eating fat, including saturated fat is no problem if you are eating low carbs. Because of the absence of carbs insulin is not raised and the fats are used for energy. Ingesting a bit less calories than you burn will yield body fat loss while preserving muscle. I live in LA and this is how models and bodybuilders get shredded.
Animal food is protein + fat. We are omnivores i.e. are built to be able to eat both animal and plant foods equally. For millions of years our ancestors hunted animals and collected plants. There was no agriculture so no grains, bread ... That is what our genes are programmed to use for food - animal food + plants, not processed grains.
Monica already wrote recently about cholesterol. In reality only a small percentage are sensitive to cholesterol intake; all others can eat egg yolks, shrimp, etc, and have normal cholesterol levels. The yolk is one of the most nutritious foods there is!
Posted by: Clara | Oct 22, 2008 8:16:29 PM
I will call you Crazy. Why because HFCS is not just Fructose. You should know that considering your credentials. The University of Florida study on Fructose is not valid when considering High Fructose Corn Syyrup (HFCS) effects on obesity because of HFCS comprises only a portion of Fructose. Oh, also, it is not the the sugars, Glucose or Fructose, that contribute to our obesity epidemic. It is the method used to manipulate Glucose and Fructose resulting in the ever present HFCS. Unfortunately our bodies do not metabolize HFCS with the same pathways used by Fructose and Glucose. HFCS dose not contribute to ATP production to the extent that Fructose or Glucose does. You being the professional should also know that.
It is obvious the Western diet has way too much sugar...kids cereals often contain 50% sugar. Part of the excess sugar comes in the form of HFCS which is found in many products found on grocery shelves in the middle of the stores ie kid cereals. Every time I shop I look at ingredients to see if HFCS is on the label and find few products on inner-store shelves that lack the sweetner.
What is the brain's preferred macro-nutrient source? What are the DRIs for CHO in the average diet?
Last, lab rats are a step in the scientific process. Lab rats metabloize nutrients in virtually the same way as humans. If an experiment supports the protocol and can be repeated...well, as a professional you should know this too. Hmmm, Why take the time to assess or explain details when less information allows you to make unsubstantiated points?
Posted by: Simpatico | Oct 22, 2008 1:28:37 PM
It's helpful to keep in mind that there are several types of sugar.
Fructose comes in the form of fruit, in addition to processed foods. You probably want to consume more fructose in that form, not less. The difference is the fiber in fruit which doesn't exist in processed foods.
Lactose comes from milk. That's also sugar.
Sucrose is table sugar, and maltose is sugar that comes from malt beverages/beer.
Substances such as sucralose are man-made.
Your body breaks all of the natural sugars down to glucose, which goes directly to the bloodstream and is about 80 percent of your metabolism.
Posted by: Jon | Oct 22, 2008 12:10:32 PM
Sugar can be bad for you if taken in excess, putting a strain on the beta-islet cells in the pancreas, eventualy leading to the failure of those cells, causing hyperglycemia, which have their own set of problems.
As for O, your points on one side can be true, but are a little misleading the way they're framed/posed.
Posted by: O | Oct 22, 2008 2:33:30 AM
I think the main point of the article is to focus on the big picture. In this case, instead of being paranoid about HFCS, focus instead on the total amount of sugars in your diet. As a disciplined follower of a low-carb diet, I of course go a step further and keep all carbs in the diet low. The carbs in my diet are 16% of calories and come almost all from fruits and vegetables.
As for the comment by BillyHW, I hope you are joking. If not, please for a start look at the previous postings in this blog so you can learn that 1) fat is not bad; 2) cholesterol in food has very little to do with cholesterol in your blood, and 3) animal food is as healthy as plant food, and 4) saturated fat is not bad either.
Posted by: BillyHW | Oct 21, 2008 6:07:00 PM
But how can sugar be bad for you? Sugar is low in fat, and especially low in artery-clogging saturated fat! It's even low in cholesterol. And it comes from plants, not animals.
